Lizcano, Juan
WR-68,348-03
| Tex. App. | Apr 15, 2015Background
- Lizcano challenges his death sentence with nine post-conviction habeas claims; the ninth concerns intellectual disability.
- This dissent targets the denial of the intellectual-disability claim, arguing for a full opinion on whether execution would violate the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments.
- IQ has already been deemed below 70; onset of subaverage IQ occurred before 18, per existing records.
- The court previously applied the Briseno framework requiring subaverage IQ plus adaptive-deficits prior to 18 as the test for intellectual disability.
- The Briseno test was criticized as unscientific; the dissent urges reassessment of adaptive-deficits criteria and the test itself.
- The dissent urges reexamining whether the new evidence, taken with the total record, establishes adaptive deficits under a modern standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Briseno be reassessed for adaptive deficits? | Lizcano argues Briseno is unscientific and outdated. | State adheres to Briseno as the controlling standard. | Dissent urges reexamination of Briseno; calls for a full opinion on viability. |
| Does the record prove adaptive deficits under an appropriate test? | New evidence may show adaptive deficits under a modern standard. | Under Briseno, evidence is insufficient for adaptive deficits. | Dissent would evaluate under a suitable test and potentially find adaptive deficits. |
| Is the intellectual-disability claim procedurally barred or merits-based? | Claim should be considered on the merits given IQ below 70 and onset before 18. | Court previously determined it was not procedurally barred and denied on merits. | Dissent would address merits under a clarified test rather than treat it as procedurally barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (grounds mental retardation criteria guiding Atkins-based claims)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (U.S. 2014) (requires appropriate assessment of intellectual disability under Atkins)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (prohibits executing intellectually disabled individuals)