659 F. App'x 778
5th Cir.2016Background
- Obie Weathers III was convicted of capital murder for a 2000 tavern robbery/shooting in San Antonio and sentenced to death; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After state postconviction proceedings, Weathers pursued an Atkins claim (intellectual disability bars execution), presenting IQ testing (scores: 53 in May 2011, 65 in Aug. 2011, 79 in 2008) and testimony from psychologist Dr. Joann Murphey and lay witnesses about adaptive deficits.
- The State presented Dr. Joseph C. Sparks (retired psychiatrist), school records, employment records, and ~20 hours of recorded inmate phone calls showing articulate, wide-ranging conversations.
- The state habeas court applied Ex Parte Briseno (AAMR factors) and found Weathers failed to prove (by a preponderance) the three AAMR elements: significantly subaverage intellect, adaptive deficits, and onset before 18; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted those findings and denied relief.
- The federal district court denied habeas relief under AEDPA, finding the state court’s factual determinations reasonable in light of evidence (questionable IQ test validity, possible malingering/masking, phone calls undermining adaptive-deficit claims, scant pre-18 evidence).
- Weathers sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Fifth Circuit to appeal the denial of his Atkins claim; the Fifth Circuit denied the COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weathers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court unreasonably credited Dr. Sparks (psychiatrist) who opined isolation may depress test performance and who did not use formal AAMR diagnostic protocols | Sparks was unqualified to opine on intellectual disability; his testimony about isolation was unreliable | Sparks had long experience evaluating inmates, screened for intellectual disability, and his observations were proper credibility fodder for the factfinder | State court’s reliance on Sparks was not objectively unreasonable; reasonable jurists could not debate it |
| Whether the state court unreasonably rejected Dr. Murphey’s conclusions that Weathers has significantly subaverage IQ and adaptive deficits | Dr. Murphey’s testing and adaptive-living interviews support intellectual disability; IQ scores (adjusted) and lay ratings demonstrate deficits | Murphey’s evaluation omitted key trial records, relied on interested lay raters, and tests may reflect masking, malingering, or death-row effects; phone calls and other evidence refute adaptive deficits | State court reasonably discounted Murphey’s conclusions; findings not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether there is evidence of onset of intellectual disability before age 18 (AAMR/Briseno prong) | School placement in special education, teacher testimony of reading/writing struggles, and family history indicate childhood onset | School records show mixed performance; teachers noted he could do work but didn’t; good grades and job performance undercut pre-18 deficit | No reliable evidence of onset before 18; state court reasonably found this prong unmet |
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s AEDPA conclusion (i.e., whether COA should issue) | The factual record and expert evidence require further appellate review; state findings were unreasonable | The state and district courts applied AEDPA deferential review; factual findings were reasonable and supported by record | COA denied: reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of habeas relief under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Ex Parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas adoption of AAMR criteria and evidentiary Briseno factors)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard; reasonable jurist debate test)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (deference to state factfinding in Atkins-related claims)
- Williams v. Stephens, 761 F.3d 561 (5th Cir.) (application of Briseno/AAMR in federal habeas context)
- Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (deference to state-court factual determinations under AEDPA)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (Supreme Court guidance on intellectual disability and IQ scores)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on federal evidentiary hearings when state-court record reviewed)