Maldonado v. Thaler
625 F.3d 229
5th Cir.2010Background
- Maldonado, a Mexican national, was sentenced to death in 1997 in Texas for murder during a 1995 robbery.
- After exhausting state postconviction relief, Maldonado sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied and denied a COA.
- The Fifth Circuit granted a COA only on Maldonado’s Atkins claim (mental retardation) and remanded for briefing on that issue.
- Texas Briseno framework requires three elements for mental retardation: subaverage intellectual functioning, adaptive deficits, and onset before age 18.
- A seven-day evidentiary hearing in state court considered Maldonado’s IQ and adaptive functioning; findings favored not mentally retarded.
- On federal review, the court considered whether Denkowski’s testing could be disregarded and whether remaining evidence sufficed to uphold the state court’s decision under Atkins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Denkowski's testing can be wholly disregarded | Maldonado | Maldonado | No; errors do not render entire testimony unreliable. |
| Whether upward adjustments to WAIS-III and ABAS scores undermine the Briseno finding | Maldonado | Maldonado | Even disregarding Denkowski, remaining evidence does not show error in Briseno outcome. |
| Whether the remaining evidence supports finding Maldonado not mentally retarded under Briseno | Maldonado | Maldonado | Not; the remaining evidence fails to meet Briseno’s prongs. |
| Whether the district court properly applied AEDPA standards on a state-court Atkins decision | Maldonado | State | The district court’s and state court’s determinations were not unreasonable under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (three-prong Briseno test for mental retardation; ultimate determination by court)
- Woods v. Quarterman, 493 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2007) (presumption of correctness; AEDPA standard for factual determinations)
- Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (reviewing state court decisions under AEDPA; focus on ultimate decision)