Kilgore v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19942
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Dean Kilgore, serving prior life sentences, was convicted of killing fellow inmate Emerson Jackson in 1989 and sentenced to death; Florida courts affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Kilgore later sought post-conviction relief claiming intellectual disability under Florida law (requiring IQ ≤ 70 plus adaptive deficits manifested before age 18); the state held evidentiary hearings with competing expert IQ tests (scores ranged 67–85) and retrospective adaptive-functioning evidence.
- The state trial court found the single prorated 1994 IQ score of 67 unreliable and relied on multiple IQ scores of 74–76 as most representative, concluding Kilgore failed the IQ prong and denying relief; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in 2010.
- Kilgore filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief, applying AEDPA deference to the state-court decision.
- After the Florida Supreme Court decision but before this appeal’s resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hall v. Florida (2014), holding that defendants with IQs in the test margin of error (≈70–75) must be allowed to present additional adaptive-functioning evidence; Kilgore argued Hall required relief or application retroactively.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief, holding (1) Hall was not "clearly established" Supreme Court law at the time the Florida court ruled (so AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) does not compel reversal), and (2) Hall announced a new rule that is not retroactively applicable on collateral review under Teague.
Issues
| Issue | Kilgore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law by using a bright-line IQ ≤ 70 cutoff (violating Atkins/Hall) | Hall requires consideration of scores within test margin (70–75); Florida’s rigid 70 cutoff denied Kilgore ability to show disability | Atkins left definition/implementation to states; Florida precedent reasonably required IQ ≤ 70; Hall postdates Florida decision and is not controlling for AEDPA | Denied — Florida decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law as of the state-court ruling |
| Whether Hall is "clearly established" law for AEDPA review of the 2010 Florida decision | Hall’s rule should control federal habeas review | Hall was decided after the state court; AEDPA looks to Supreme Court law as of state decision date, so Hall is not clearly established then | Denied — Hall was not clearly established at the time of the Florida decision |
| Whether Hall announces a new rule subject to Teague nonretroactivity or is retroactive to collateral review | Hall should be applied retroactively because it refines Atkins and protects a class barred from execution | Hall announced a new procedural rule refining state procedures and is not retroactive under Teague (no Penry/Atkins-style substantive expansion) | Denied — Hall announced a new rule and is not retroactive under Teague |
| Whether Kilgore made a sufficient showing that Hall would likely entitle him to relief even if retroactive | Kilgore argued his scores and adaptive evidence would satisfy Hall’s standard | State emphasized multiple higher IQ scores and the statecourt’s considered factual findings rejecting the lone low prorated score | Denied — even ignoring AEDPA/retroactivity constraints, Kilgore failed to show entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (IQ scores within test margin of error require consideration of additional adaptive-functioning evidence)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (nonretroactivity doctrine for new rules on collateral review)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) looks to Supreme Court holdings as of state-court decision)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference — state-court decisions must be objectively unreasonable for habeas relief)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA is high)
- In re Henry, 757 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2014) (Hall announced a new rule and is not retroactive on collateral review)
- In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (Atkins rule applicable retroactively on collateral review)