Yokamon Hearn v. Rick Thaler, Director, 669 F.3d 265

Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death based on special sentencing factors.
He challenged the decision in state post-conviction and pursued federal habeas relief; his initial petitions were denied.
Following Atkins v. Virginia, Hearn obtained authorization to file a successive habeas petition asserting mental retardation.
The CCA denied relief, holding that neuropsychological evidence could not wholly replace full-scale IQ scores to prove mental retardation.
The district court granted leave to pursue the Atkins claim but later denied relief under AEDPA; the district court and this court followed a deferential standard of review.
Hearn seeks a COA on whether the CCA unreasonably applied Atkins by refusing to replace IQ scores with clinical assessments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCA unreasonably applied Atkins	Hearn argues CCA wrongly refused to replace IQ scores with clinical assessment.	Hearn contends Texas rule is inflexible and risks Atkins violations; district court favored deference under AEDPA.	No; CCA's approach is not an unreasonable application of Atkins.

ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (delegates enforcement methodology to states)
Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (U.S. 2009) (recognizes no precise procedural rule from Atkins)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (limits on federal rulemaking in state capital cases)
In re Johnson, 334 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2003) (states may develop procedures under Atkins)
Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (describes WAIS-III as standard instrument for IQ)
Leal v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2005) (AEDPA deferential standard and reasonable applications concepts)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (U.S. 2010) (unreasonable application standard; non-precise rules from Supreme Court)
Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas standard defining mental retardation under Atkins)