Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.
AP-77,038
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Appellant Carnell Petetan Jr. raised multiple claims that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty.
- Texas courts have applied the Ex parte Briseno standard (135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)) to determine intellectual disability, including use of non-clinical "Briseno factors."
- After Petetan’s original submission, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), which invalidated aspects of the Briseno approach, especially reliance on non-clinical factors in assessing adaptive functioning.
- Moore also identified tensions between Briseno and Hall v. Florida’s approach to IQ and standard error of measurement, leading to broader questions about Texas’s standard.
- Because Moore was decided before Petetan’s appeal became final and he had specifically requested reconsideration of the Texas standard, the Court granted rehearing on its own motion to address whether and how Texas should revise its intellectual-disability framework.
Issues
| Issue | Petetan | State | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Briseno’s use of non-clinical factors to evaluate adaptive functioning is constitutionally permissible | Briseno factors should be abandoned; rely on clinical standards | Defend continued use of Briseno factors | Moore invalidates reliance on non-clinical Briseno factors for adaptive-functioning assessment |
| Whether Texas’s IQ evaluation method (narrowing the score+/- S.E.M. range) complies with Hall v. Florida | Hall requires proper use of S.E.M.; Texas must conform | Texas’s method is defensible | Moore and Hall together call Texas’s IQ practices into question; adjustments required |
| Whether Petetan is entitled to relief based on Moore | Petetan seeks reconsideration and possible relief under Moore | State opposes automatic relief | Court agreed rehearing was prudent given Moore’s impact and Petetan’s request; concurrence supports reconsideration |
| Whether the court should grant rehearing on its own motion to address standard | Petetan requested reworking standard earlier; favors review now | State opposed doing so previously | Court granted rehearing on its own motion due to Moore’s intervening decision and unique circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas’s prior framework using non‑clinical “Briseno factors” for adaptive functioning)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (U.S. 2017) (invalidated reliance on non‑clinical Briseno factors and questioned other aspects of Texas’s standard)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2014) (addressed proper use of IQ scores and standard error of measurement in death‑penalty intellectual‑disability determinations)
- In re Cathey, 857 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2017) (recognized that Briseno was invalidated but noted courts had not yet defined a replacement standard)