State v. Spivey
2014 Ohio 721
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Warren Spivey was convicted of aggravated murder in 1989, sentenced to death by a three-judge panel, and his convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and postconviction proceedings.
- After Atkins v. Virginia, Spivey filed a timely successive postconviction petition (Atkins/Lott claim) in 2002 asserting he is "mentally retarded" and therefore ineligible for execution.
- Two court-ordered forensic evaluations (Dr. Smalldon in 2004; Dr. Gazley in 2010) found Spivey’s full-scale IQ in the mid-80s and concluded he did not meet clinical criteria for mental retardation; Dr. Gazley also found him competent to participate in proceedings.
- Testimony and records showed lifelong cognitive and adaptive limitations (learning problems, seizures, some hygiene and employment issues) but not the significant adaptive deficits required by Ohio’s Atkins/Lott standard.
- The trial court denied the petition in 2012, finding no significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (IQ >70) despite some adaptive limitations; Spivey appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Spivey failed to prove mental retardation by a preponderance, and rejecting challenges to the Lott framework, jury determination, and competency handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spivey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spivey proved mental retardation under Atkins/Lott | Spivey: lifelong adaptive deficits plus evidence of cognitive impairment overcome IQ presumption | State: two experts and historical IQ scores rebut mental retardation; IQs in mid-80s create presumption against diagnosis | Court: Denied — Spivey failed to prove mental retardation by a preponderance; IQ scores dispositive |
| Validity of Lott's rebuttable presumption (IQ >70) | Spivey: presumption is irrational and violates due process | State: bound by Ohio Supreme Court precedent; presumption permissible and applied here | Court: Declined to invalidate Lott; bound to follow it |
| Whether a jury must determine mental retardation | Spivey: jury determination required under Apprendi/Ring line | State: issue is for the court, not a jury, per Ohio precedent | Court: Denied — Lott/Were control; judge decides mental retardation |
| Competency to participate in postconviction proceedings | Spivey: trial court should have found him incompetent and stayed proceedings | State: court ordered competency evaluation, stay, hearing; Dr. Gazley found competency | Court: Denied — no abuse of discretion; competency evaluation and finding were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (holding execution of intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment)
- State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2002) (adopting Ohio standards and rebuttable presumption re: IQ in Atkins claims)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (holding mental retardation determinations are for the court, not a jury)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for postconviction mental-retardation determinations)