### IN THE SUPREME COU RT OF TEN NESSEE

AT JACKSON

May 31, 2 01 2 S es si on Heard at Li ps co m b Un iv ers it y

DAVID KEE N v. STAT E OF TENNE SSEE

A p p e a l b y P e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s

C r i m i n a l C o u r t f

o r S h e l b y C o u n t y

N o

. P 2 5 1 5 7 C h r i s C r a f t

, J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 1

- 0 0 7 8 9

- S C

- R 1 1

- P D

- F i l e d D e c e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 2

G A R Y R. W A D E

, C.J

., di ss en ti ng

.

In Van Tran v. St at e

, 66 S.W .3d 79 0, 79 2 (Ten n. 20 01 ), th is Co ur t he ld th at

“t h e Ei g ht h Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on an d art ic le I, § 16 of t h e

Ten ne ss ee Co ns ti tu ti on pr oh ib it th e ex ecu ti on of [in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed ] in di vi du al s

be cau se su ch ex ecu ti on s vi ol at e ev ol vi ng st an da rd s of de cen cy th at m ark th e pr og res s

of a m at ur in g so ci et y

, are gr os sl y d i s p r op or ti on at e, an d se rv e no va li d pe no lo gi cal

pu rp os e in an y cas e.” Th e n e x t ye a r, th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t reac he d th e

sa m e co nc lu si on :

W e are no t pe rs ua de d th at th e ex ecu ti on of [in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed ]

cri m in al s wil l m eas ur ab ly ad va nc e th e de te rren t or t h e r e t rib ut iv e

pu rp o s e of th e de at h pe na lt y

. Co ns tru in g an d ap pl y in g th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t in th e li gh t of ou r “ ev ol vi ng st an da rd s of de cen cy ,” we

th eref or e co nc lu de t ha t su ch pu ni sh m en t is ex ces si ve an d th at th e

Co ns ti tu ti on “ pl aces a su bs ta nt iv e res tri ct io n on th e St at e’s po wer to

ta ke th e li fe” o f a[n in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed ] of

fen de r.

Atk in s v. Virg in ia

, 53 6 U.S. 30 4, 32 1 (2 00 2) (q uo ti ng Fo rd v. W ai nwr ig ht

, 47 7 U.S.

39 9, 40 5 (1 98 6) ). The im po rt of th es e de ci si on s is cl ear: ex ecu ti ng in t e l l e ct ua ll y

di sa bl ed in di vi du al s is un la wfu l un de r bo th th e st at e an d fed eral co ns ti tu ti on s. In m y 1

As not ed in the m aj ori ty opi nio n, the T enn ess ee Gene ra l Asse m bly le gisla ti vely pr o h i b i te d the 1

exe cut ion of int el le ct ual ly dis abl ed per son s pri or to the se dec is ion s. Ac t o f Ap r. 1 2, 19 90, c h. 10 38, 1 990

(continued...)vi ew, th e m ajor it y ’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e Po st -Co nv ic ti on Pro ced ur e Act (“ PCPA” )

un ne ces sa ril y de pr iv es Dav id Keen (th e “ Pet it io ne r”) of an ad eq ua te op po rtu ni ty to

pr ov e th at he is in el ig ib le for th e d eat h p en al ty ba se d on ev id en ce t ha t d id no t ex is t

ei th er at th e ti m e of tri al or at hi s in it ia l po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g. In co ns eq ue nc e,

I m us t re sp ect fu ll y

di ss en t.

I.

As ob se rv ed by th e m ajor it y

, th is cas e req ui res us to in te rp ret Ten ne ss ee Co de

Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7 (2 00 6)

, th e st at ut e wit hi n th e PCPA pu rs ua nt to whi ch

th e Pet it io ne r se ek s to reo pe n hi s po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs

. In m y vi ew, th e ke y

pr ov is io n of th e st at ut e in th is cas e is s e c t io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ), whi ch al lo ws a

pe ti ti on er to reo pe n hi s po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs “ ba se d up on ne w sc ie nt ifi c

ev id en ce es ta bl is hi ng th at th e pe ti ti on er is act ua ll y in no cen t of th e of fen se or of

fen se s

fo r whi ch th e p et it io ne r was co nv ic te d.” 2

On Aug us t 6, 20 10

, th e Pet it io ne r fil ed a m ot io n to reo pe n hi s po st -co nv ic ti on

pr oc eed in gs in or de r to as se rt a cl ai m th at he is in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed an d, th eref or e,

in el ig ib le to be ex ecu te d un de r Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 39 -1 3- 20 3, art ic le

I, se ct io n 16 of th e Ten ne ss ee Co ns ti tu ti on

, an d th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d

St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. In or de r to pr ev ai l on a cl ai m of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty, th e pe rs on

cl ai m in g su ch di sa bi li ty m us t sa ti sf y th e fo ll owi ng cri te ria : “ (1 ) Si gn ifi can tl y

su ba ve rag e ge ne ral in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g as ev id en ced by a fu nc ti on al in te ll ig en ce

qu ot i e n t (I.Q.) of se ve nt y (7 0) or be lo w; (2 ) Defi ci ts in ad ap ti ve be ha vi or ; an d

(3 ) The in te ll ect ua l d is ab il it y m us t h av e b een m an ife st ed du rin g t he de ve lo pm en ta l

pe rio d, or by ei g h te en (1 8) y ears of ag e.” Ten n. Co de Ann

. § 39 -1 3- 20 3( a). In

su pp or t of hi s m ot io n to reo pe n, t h e P e t i t i o ne r of fere d ev id en ce as to each of th es e

req ui rem en ts . Ini ti al ly, he pr ov id ed do cu m en ta ti on de m on st rat in g th at in Feb ru ary

of 20 10

, he rece iv ed a fu ll sc al e I.Q. sc or e of 67 on th e W ech sl er Adu lt In te ll ig en ce

Scal e, Fo ur th Edi ti on (“ W AIS-IV” ). Fu rth er, he su bm it te d an affi da vi t fro m a

ps y ch ol og is t, who call ed in to qu es ti on th e va li di ty of pr ev io us I.Q. te st sc or es —t he

(...continued)

T enn . Pub . Act s 73 0 ( cod if ie d as amended at T enn . Code Ann. § 39- 13- 203 (20 10) ).

Bec aus e I bel ie ve t hat the Pet it ion er has sat is fi ed sec ti on 40- 30- 117( a) (2)

, I woul d no t r eac h t he 2

que st ion of whet her he is ent it le d to re ope n his pos t- con victi o n p r o c e e d ings pur sua nt to sec ti on 40- 30-

117( a) (1) (a ll owin g a pet it ion er to re ope n pos t- con victi on pro cee din gs wit hin one year of “a fi nal rul ing of

an app el la te cou rt est abl is hin g a con st it uti ona l ri ght that was not re cognized as exi st ing at the ti m e of tr ia l,

if re tr osp ect ive ap pli cat ion of th at ri ght is re qui re d”)

.

-2-m ajor it y of whi ch fel l wit hi n t h e l o w 7 0s to lo w 80 s ran ge —an d rep or te d th at th e

Pet it io ne r ha d si gn ifi can t defi ci ts in ad ap ti ve be ha vi or whi ch m an ife st ed be fo re the

ag e of ei gh te en

. The ps y ch ol og is t al so op in ed th at th e n ew W AIS-IV sc or e sh ou ld

be ad jus te d fro m 67 to 66 be cau se of t he Flynn effe ct

. The Pet it io ne r ob ta in ed th is

in fo rm at io n so m e fo ur y ears aft er th e Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s affi rm ed th e de ni al

of hi s i ni ti al po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on

.

The tri al co ur t de n i e d t h e m ot io n to reo pe n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

,

co nc lu d i n g t h a t pr oo f of in el ig ib il it y fo r th e de at h pe na lt y was in su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h act ua l in no cen ce fo r p u r p o s e s o f se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ). The Co ur t of

Cri m in al App eal s af

fir m ed

.

Prel im in ari ly, I wou ld ob se rv e th at a fu nd am en ta l ru le of st at ut or y co ns truc tion

is th at th is Co ur t ha s “ an ob li ga ti on to in te rp ret st at ut es in a way th at pr es erv es th ei r

co ns ti tu ti on al it y .” Ja ck so n v. Sm it h, __ _ S.W .3d

__

_,

__ _, No. W 20 11 -0 01 94 -SCR 1 1- CV, 20 12 W L 58 28 61 2, at *6 (Ten n. Nov

. 16

, 20 12 ) (ci ti ng Jo rd a n v

. K n o x

Cn ty., 21 3 S.W .3d 75 1, 78 0- 81 (Ten n. 2 0 0 7 ) ). If po ss ib le

, we sh ou ld av oi d an

in te rp ret at io n of le gi sl at i o n th at “ pl aces it on a co ll is io n co ur se ” wit h th e st at e or

fed eral co ns ti tu ti on s. Id . This pri nc ip le gi ve s ri se to two qu es ti on s rel ev an t to th is

ap pe al : (1 ) whe th er in te rp ret in g Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 )

so as to ba r a cl ai m ba se d up on n e w ly acq ui red ev id en ce of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty

wou ld br in g th e st at ut e in co nf li ct wit h th e st at e or fed eral co ns ti tu ti on s; an d (2 ) if so

, whe th er th e st at ut e m ay reas on ab ly be in te rp ret ed to av oid thi s co nst itu ti on al co nf li ct

. I wou ld an swe r bo th of t he se qu es ti on s i n t he affi rm at iv e.

A.

Th is Co ur t’s pr io r de ci si on s ha ve es ta bl is he d th at a pr is on er’s du e pr oc e s s

rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on an d art ic le

I

, se ct io n 8 of th e Ten ne ss ee Co ns ti tu ti on req ui re a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty t o

ch al le ng e a co nv ic t i o n o r se nt en ce in po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs

. In Bu rfo rd v.

St at e, 84 5 S.W .2d 20 4, 20 6- 10 (Ten n. 19 92 ), th is C o u r t a d dr es se d th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a fo rm er ve rs io n of Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 10 2

(1 99 0)

, whi ch ha d est ab li sh ed a th ree- y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r fil in g a pe ti ti on

fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Fo ll owi ng Bu rfo rd ’s co nv ic ti o n, hi s se nt en ce was

en ha nc ed be cau se of m

ul ti pl e pr io r co nv ic ti on s; whe n se ve ral of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s

were ul ti m at el y se t as id e, he so ug ht rel ie f fro m th e en ha nc ed se nt en ce ev en th ou gh

m or e t h a n t h r e e ye ars ha d pa ss ed

. Id

. at 20 6. The Co ur t ob se rv ed th at Bu rfo rd ’s

-3-ch al le ng e to hi s se nt en ce de pe nd ed up on ha vi ng hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s se t as id e, whi ch

he was u n a b l e to acco m

pl is h wit hi n th e ti m e li m it im po se d by th e po st -co nv ic ti on

st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

. Id . a t 20 8. Bec au se th e st at ut e, as ap pl ie d, d ep riv ed Bu rfo rd

of a “ reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty” to pr es en t a p o st -co nv ic ti on cl ai m ch al le ng in g th e

va li di ty of hi s se nt en ce, th e Co ur t ru le d th at th e st at ut or y li m it at io ns pe rio d vi ol at ed

hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht of du e pr oc es s. Id

. In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on

, th e Co ur t

fo un d th at Bu rfo rd ’s “ in te res t a g a i n s t se rv in g an ex ces si ve se nt en ce in vi ol at io n of

his co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s” ou twei gh ed th e Sta te ’ s int er es ts in “ ad m ini str at ive ef

fi ci en cy

an d eco no m

y ” an d in “ pr ev en ti ng th e li ti ga ti on of s ta le an d fr au du le nt cla im s.” Id

.

at 20 9 (“ In cri m in al li ti ga ti on

, whe re an al le ge d in fri ng em en t of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

of te n affe ct s li fe or li be rty, co nv en ti on al n o t i o n s of fin al it y as so ci at ed wit h ci vi l

li ti ga ti on ha ve le ss im

po rta nc e, an d ‘the fact th at a gi ve n la w or pr oc ed ur e is effi ci en t,

co nv en ie nt , a nd us efu l in faci li ta ti ng fu nc ti on s of go ve rn m en t, st an di ng al on e, wil l

no t sa ve it if it is co nt rary to th e Co ns ti tu ti on .’ ” (ci ta ti on om it te d) (q uo ti ng I.N.S. v.

Ch ad ha , 46 2 U.S. 9 19 , 94 4 (1 98 3) )). 3

Mo re rece nt cas es ha ve r e a f f i r med th e va li di ty of th e du e pr oc es s an al y si s

em pl oyed in Bu rfo rd

. See, e.g

., W il li am s v. St at e, 4 4 S

. W. 3d 46 4 (Ten n. 20 01 )

(r eco gn iz in g a po ss ib le du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n ba se d up on co un se l m is rep res en ti ng the

fact th at ap pe ll at e rev ie w was be in g so ug ht ); Seal s v. St at e

, 23 S.W .3d 27 2 (Ten n.

20 00 ) (rec og ni zi ng a po ss ib le du e pr oc es s vi ol a t i o n whe re m en ta l in co m pe te nc e

pr ev en ts an in m at e fro m fil in g a po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on ); San ds v. St at e, 90 3 S.W .2d

29 7 (Ten n. 19 95 ) (p ro vi di ng a th ree- pa rt te st fo r ap pl y in g B u r fo rd an d no ti ng th at

co ur ts s h o u l d co ns id er whe th er th e gr ou nd s fo r th e cl ai m at is su e aro se aft er th e

st at ut e of li m it at io ns be ga n t o ru n) . In Sm it h v. St at e, 35 7 S.W .3d 32 2, 35 8 (Ten n.

20 11 ), we ob se rv ed th at th e “ pe rv as iv e th em e” in cas es in whi ch a pr oc ed ur al

li m it at io n vi ol at ed a pe ti ti on er’s d ue pro ces s ri gh ts “ is th at cir cu m st an ces be yo nd a

pe ti ti on er ’s co nt ro l ” p rev en te d c om pl ia nc e wit h t he pro ced ur al li m it at io n a t i ss ue

.

App lying th e sa m e rat io na le

, th is Co ur t ha s he ld th at po st -co nv ic ti on

pe ti ti on ers m

us t be giv en a m ean in gf

ul op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t clai m s of int el le ct ua l

T he PCPA, ori ginal ly ena ct ed thr ee years af te r Burf ord

, inc lud es an exc ept ion to the st at ute of 3

l i mi t a t i o n s f

or cl ai m s see king re li ef fr om a sen te nce enh anc ed bec aus e of a pre vious con victi on tha t has

s u b seq uen tl y bee n hel d inval id. See T enn

. Code Ann. § 40- 30- 102( b)( 3) (20 10)

. T he PCPA inc lud es a

nea rl y ide nti cal pro visio n al lowi ng pet itio ne rs to re op en pos t- con victi on pro cee din gs when a pri or con victi on

use d to enh anc e a sen te nce is set asi de sub seq uen t to the adj udi cat ion of an ini ti al pos t- con victi on pet it ion

. See id . § 4 0- 30- 117( a) (3)

.

-4-di sa bi li ty. In Van Tran

, fo r ex am pl e, th is Co ur t he ld th at th e pe ti ti on er was en ti tl ed

to rel ie f un de r Ten ne ss ee C o d e A nn ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 21 7( a)(1 ) (1 99 7)

, whi ch

, li ke th e cu rren t ve rs io n of se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(1 ), al lo wed po s t

- c o n vi ct io n

p r o c e ed in gs to be reo pe ne d “ ba se d up on a fin al ru li ng of an ap pe ll at e c o u r t

es ta bl is hi ng a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th at was no t reco gn iz ed as e xi st in g a t t he ti m e of

tri al

, if ret ro sp ect iv e ap pl ic at io n of th at rig ht is req ui red .” 66 S.W .3d at 81 1- 12

. Thi s

Co u r t ack no wled ge d th at Van Tran ha d no t st ric tl y co m pl ie d wit h se ct io n

4 0

- 3 0- 21 7( a)(1 ) in th at hi s m ot io n to reo pe n di d no t as se rt a fin al ap pe ll at e ru li ng

e s t ab li sh in g th e un co ns ti tu ti on al it y of ex ecu ti ng in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed pe rs on s.

Nev ert he le ss

, th e Co ur t perm it te d hi s ch al le ng e, ho ld in g th at “ fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s

di ct at es th at [ he ] ha ve a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty to rai se th [e] is su e [o f in te ll ect ua l

di sa bi li ty] .” Id

. at 81 2 (ci ti ng W il li am s, 44 S.W .3d at 46 4; Seal s, 23 S.W .3d at 27 2)

. The Co ur t de cl in ed to in te rp ret se ct io n 40 -3 0- 21 7( a)(1 ) as a ba r to Van Tran ’s cl ai m

be cau se

, un de r su ch an in te rp ret at io n, a “ po te nt ia ll y [in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed ] pe rs on

[co ul d] be ex ecu te d be fo re th e is su e is rev ie wed .” Id

. Si m il arl y

, in Howel l v. St at e,

15 1 S.W .3d 45 0 (Ten n. 20 04 ), we he ld th at ap p l i c a t i o n of th e st rin ge nt “ cl ear an d

co nv in ci ng ev id en ce” sta

nda rd of T en ne sse e Co de A nnot at ed se ct ion 40- 30-11 7( a)(4 )

wou ld vi ol at e th e pe ti ti on er’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s be cau se

, “ [a]s in Bu rfo rd

, W il li am s,

an d Seal s, th e p e t i t i o n er [was ] co nf ro nt ed wit h ci rcu m st an ces be y on d hi s co nt ro l

whi ch pr ev en t e d h i m fro m pr ev io us ly ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce on

co ns ti tu ti on al gro un ds .” Id . at 4 62 (em ph as is ad de d)

.

One of th e fact or s di st in gu is hi ng Bu rfo rd an d it s pr og en y fro m th e in st an t cas e

is th at th e pr oc ed ur al li m it at io n he re is no t a st at ut e of li m it at io ns bu t rat he r a st at ut e

th at de fin es th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch a pr is on er m ay reo pe n hi s po st -co nv ic ti on

pr oc eed in gs

. In m

y vi ew, th is is no t a m at eri al di st in ct io n

. B y p r ov id in g a li m it ed

nu m be r of av en ue s fo r reo pe ni ng a po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on

, Te n n e s se e Co de

Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a) op erat es as a pr oc ed ur al ba r to cl ai m s th at do no t fal l

wit hi n it s na rro wly de fin ed pr ov is io ns

. The re i s n o rat io na l ba si s fo r a di st in ct io n

be twee n a pr oc ed ur al ba r ba se d up on a ti m e li m it at io n fo r fil in g an d a pr oc ed ur al ba r

th at op erat es by res tri ct in g a pe ti ti on er’s ab il it y to reo pe n hi s po st -co n v i c t io n

pr oc eed i n g s

. Bo th Van Tran an d Howel l ap pl ie d th e rat io na le of Bu rfo rd to

pr oc ed ur al li m it at io ns th at di d no t in vo lv e a ti m e li m it at io n, an d th e PCPA in cl ud es

ne arl y id en ti cal pr ov i s i o n s p e rta in in g to bo th types of pr oc ed ur al ba rs

. See Ten n.

Co de Ann . §§ 40 -3 0- 10 2( b) (3 ), 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(3 ).

Ano th er qu es ti on is whe th er th e fact s pr es en te d he re qu al ify as ci rcu m st an ces

-5-be y on d th e Pet it io ne r’s co nt ro l th at pr ev en te d hi m fro m m ak in g hi s cl ai m at an earl ie r

st ag e. See Sm it h, 35 7 S.W .3d at 35 8. The maj o r i t y di st in gu is he s Van Tran an d

Howel l, exp la in in g th at un li ke in th os e cas es

, th e Pet it io ne r was no t wit ho ut a le ga l

r e m ed y ei th er du rin g hi s tri al or whe n he fil ed hi s in it ia l po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on

. W hi le th at is an accu rat e st at eme n t

, t hi s Co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly es ta bl is he d th at du e

pr oc es s pr ecl ud es ap pl ic at io n of a pr oc ed ur al b a r t h a t wou ld de ny a reas on ab le

op po rtu ni ty to br in g a cl ai m th at was pr ev io us ly un a v ai la bl e be cau se it s fact ua l

gr ou nd s di d no t y et ex is t. See San ds , 9 03 S.W .2d at 30 1 (“ [D]ue pr oc es s pr oh ib it s

th e st ric t ap pl ic at io n of th e po st -co nv ic ti on st at ut e of li m it at io ns to ba r a pe ti ti on er’s

cl ai m whe n th e gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f, whe th er le ga l or fact ua l,

. . . a ris e aft er t h e po in t

at whi ch th e li m it at io ns pe rio d wou ld no rm al ly ha ve be gu n to ru n.” (em ph as is

ad de d) ).

In th is in s t a n c e, th e ke y pi ece of ev id en ce in th e m ot io n to reo pe n is th e I.Q.

te s t s co re of 67 fro m Feb ru ary of 20 10

. W hi le th e Pet it io ne r ha d un de rg on e

in t e l l ig en ce te st in g in th e pa st

, th is ne w sc or e pr ov id ed a si gn ifi can tl y st ro ng er

in di cat io n of in t e l l e c t u al di sa bi li ty th an pr ev io us te st s. W he n m ad e aware of th is

sc or e, th e Pet it io ne r act ed di li ge nt ly by fil in g a m ot io n to reo pe n acco m pa ni ed by

ex pe rt te st im on y cal li ng in to qu es ti on t h e va li di ty o f hi s earl ie r I.Q. t es t sc or es

. It 4

is m y op in io n t h a t hi s m ot io n to reo pe n rep res en ts hi s fir st m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty

to pr es en t an in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m

. Fu rth er, th e Pet it io n er’s in te res t in

ob ta in i n g a h e a rin g to pr es en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce th at m ay ren de r hi m

in el ig ib le fo r th e de at h pe na lt y far ou twei gh s an y go ve rn m en ta l in te res t in ba rri ng hi s

cl ai m

, in c l u di ng th e St at e’s in te res t in th e fin al it y of jud gm en ts

. See Howel l, 15 1

S.W .3d at 46 2 (fi nd in g th at a cap it al pe ti ti on er’s in te res t “ in pr ot ect in g hi s ve ry li fe”

ou twei gh s th e go ve rn m en ta l in te res t in th e fin al it y of jud gm en ts ); se e al so W or km an

v. Stat e, 41 S.W .3d 10 0, 1 03 (Ten n. 2 00 1) (“ [The pe ti ti on er’s] int eres t i n ob ta in in g

a he ari ng to pr es en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce th at m ay es ta bl is h actu al in no cen ce

o f a cap it al of

fen se far ou twei gh s an y go ve rn m en ta l in te res t in pr ev en ti ng t h e

li ti ga ti on [of

] st al e cl ai m s.”)

.

A s thi s Cour t ha s pr ev io us ly ack no wled ge d, in te ll ect ua l di sa bi lit y “ is a dif fi cu lt

c o n d i t io n to accu rat el y de fin e,” Howel l, 15 1 S.W .3d at 45 7, an d bo th le ga l an d

cl in ic al pr act it io ne rs face a ho st of ch al le ng es whe n at te m pt in g to as se ss a pa rti cu la r

For the same re aso ns, I woul d hol d tha t thi s new evi d e n c e of int el le ct ual dis abi li ty qua li fi es as 4

“ne w sc ie nti fi c e videnc e” for pur pos es of T enn ess ee Code Annot at ed § 40- 30- 117( a) (2)

.

-6-in di vi du al ’s I.Q. See Co le m an v. St at e, 34 1 S.W .3d 22 1, 24 2 & n.5 5 (Ten n. 20 11 ).

Giv en th es e di ffi cu lt ie s, it is no t su rp ris in g th at cru ci al ev id en ce m ay be di sc ov ered

aft er th e ex pi rat io n of th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r fil in g a po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on

. The in te rp ret at io n of Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ) ad op te d by

th e m ajor it y wou ld ba r an y in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed de at h ro w in m at e fro m reo pe ni ng

a p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in g— ev en an in m at e wit ho ut fau lt in hi s d is co ve ry of t he

ev id en ce of th e di sa bi li ty a f t e r t he ex pi rat io n of th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. In m y

as se ss m en t, du e pr oc es s req ui res th is Co ur t to in te rp ret se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ) in a

m an ne r th at al lo ws a m ean in gf ul oppo rtu ni ty to as se rt a cl ai m of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty

ba se d up on ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce an d, co ns i s t e n t w it h Van Tran

, to av oi d a

si tu at io n in whi ch an “ [in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed in m at e] may b e ex ecu te d be fo re th e

i s su e is rev ie wed .” 66 S.W .3d at 81 2; se e al so St ewart v. Mar ti ne z-Vi ll area l

, 5 2 3 5

T he m aj ori ty spe ci fi es tha t it s dec is ion doe s not for ecl ose any oth er re m edy cur re ntl y avail abl e to 5

the Pet it ion er

, but the opi nio n doe s not ide nti fy any suc h re m edy. One pos si bil it y the Pet it ion er m ay pur sue

is a pet it ion for a wri t of er ror cor am nobi s. See T enn

. Code Ann. § 40- 26- 105 (20 12)

. Yet whil e thi s Cour t

has re cognized a m oti on to re ope n pos t- con victi on pro cee din gs as a pro per pro ced ure for b r i n gi n g an

int el le ct ual di sab il it y clai m , se e, e .g., Va n T ra n, 66 S.W .3d at 811-12, I have f ound no a uth ori ty fr om

th is

st at e re cognizin g a cor am nobi s pet it ion as an app rop ri at e pro ced ura l vehicl e for ass er ti ng a cl ai m of

int el le ct ual dis abi li ty. I nde ed, thi s Cour t has sugg est ed tha t a pet it ion for pos t- con victi on re li ef is the pro per

vehicl e for cl ai m s of act ual inn oce nce bas ed u p on new sci ent if ic eviden ce, suc h as pro of of I .Q. See

Del li nger v. Sta te , 279 S.W .3d 2 82, 2 91 & n.7 (T enn . 2009). T his Cour t has al so e m pha si zed th at “c ora m

nobi s is an ext rao rdi nar

y pro ced ura l remedy” tha t “f il ls onl y a sl ight gap int o whic h fe w cas es fal l.” Sta te

v. Mi xon, 983 S.W .2d 661, 672 (T enn

. 1999 ); see al so Wl oda rz v. Sta te

, 361 S.W .3d 490, 499 (T enn

. 2012 ).

Mo re over, cor am nob is pet it ion s ar e sub j ect to a one

- year st at ute of li m it at ion s tha t begins at the ti m e the

j udgm ent of the tr ia l c our t b eco m es fi nal , al tho ugh tol li ng m ay b e avail abl e unde r li m it ed ci rc um st anc es.

Mi xon, 983 S.W .2d at 671; see al so Wo rkm an, 41 S.W .3d at 103 (de cl ini ng to dis mi s s a s t i me -barr ed a

cor am nobi s pet it ion fi le d app rox imatel y thi rt een m ont hs af te r the dis covery of new eviden ce)

. I n sho rt

, the

avail abi li ty of cor am nobis re li ef fo r t he P et it ion er ’s cl ai m is dou btf ul.

Anot her pos si ble avenue for re l i e f is a dec la ra tor y j udgm ent act ion

. I n We st v. Scho fi el d, 380

S.W .3d 1 05, 1 07 ( T enn . Ct. App. 2012) , the Court of Appea ls impli ci tl y reco gnized th e pr opr ie ty of usi ng

a dec la ra tor y j udgm ent act ion to bri ng a n e x e c u t i o n pro toc ol cl ai m

, not ing tha t if the pro toc ol is dec la re d

unc ons ti tut ion al

, the inmate can the n see k a st ay of exe cut ion

. I n con tr ast

, if a ci vil c o u r t gr a n t ed the

Pet it ion er a j udgm ent dec la ri ng tha t he is int el le ct ual ly dis abl ed, the app rop ri at e inj unc ti ve re li ef woul d be

to m odi fy his sen te nce to li fe impris onment ra the r tha n to m er el y st ay his exe cut ion

. See id. at 111 (no ti ng

tha t ci vil tr ia l cou rt s la ck aut hor it y to grant inj unc ti ve re li ef tha t con fl ic ts wit h a T enn ess ee Supr eme Cour t

ord er in a cr iminal cas e)

. Fur the r, bec aus e dec la ra tor y j udgm ent act ion s cha ll enging exe cut ion s ar e agains t

the st at e, sovere ign imm

uni ty bec om es an is sue

. See Spen cer v. Car dwel l, 937 S.W .2d 422, 424 (T enn

. Ct.

App. 1996 ). Sovere ign imm uni ty woul d not pre cl ude a dec la ra tor y j udgm ent act ion cha l l e n gi n g t he

con st it ut i o n a l i t y o f an exe cut ion pro toc ol st at ute

, see Colo nia l Pip el ine Co. v. Mo rgan, 263 S.W .3d 827,

852-53 (T enn

. 2008 ) (ho ldi ng t h a t s o ve r e ign imm uni ty doe s not bar a dec la ra tor y j udgm ent cl ai m agains t

(c ont inu ed.. .)

-7-U.S. 63 7, 64 4- 45 (1 99 8) (in te rp ret in g a ha be as co rp us st at ut e so as to av oi d th e “ far

reac hi ng an d se em in gl y pe rv ers e” co ns eq ue nc e of “ ba r[ri ng ] th e pr is on er fro m ev er

ob ta in in g

. . . rev ie w” of a cl ai m ); Hend ers on v. Thal er, 626 F.3 d 77 3, 78 8 (5t h Ci r.

20 10 ) (Wein er, J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ If we were to co nd on e th e ba rri ng of [th e pe ti ti on er’s

in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m ]

. . . , wit ho ut ev er affo rd in g hi m a[n ]

. . . op po rtu ni ty to

de m on st rat e hi s in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty, th en al lo win g th e St at e to ex ecu te hi m wou ld

no t o nl y be ‘ fu nd am en ta ll y

un jus t’; i t wo ul d b e u nc on st it ut io na l p er s e.”).

B.

In m y op in io n, Ten ne ss ee C o de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ) can be

reas on ab ly in te rp ret ed in a way th at av oi ds co nf li ct wit h th e du e pr oc es s rig ht s of

de at h ro w in m at es

. Unl ik e th e m ajor it y

, I be li ev e th at th e te rm “ of fen se ,” as us ed in

se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ), sh ou ld be in te r pr et ed to en co m pa ss th e of

fen se of m

ur de r

res ul ti ng in a se nt en ce o f de at h.

In th e cri m in al co nt ex t, th e te rm “ of fen se ” is cu st om ari ly eq ua te d wit h th e te rm

“ cri m e,” bo th of whi ch refe r ge ne ral ly t o vi ol at io ns of th e pe na l co de

. See Bl ack ’s

Law Dict io na ry 11 86 (9 th ed

. 20 09 ) (d efi ni ng “ of fen se ” as “ [a] vi ol at io n of th e la w,

a cri me” ) ; 22 C.J .S. Cri m in al Law § 3, at 4 (1 98 9) (“ The wor d ‘offen se ’ is us ua ll y

us ed to de sc rib e a cri m e.

. . . The te rm s ‘crim e,’ ‘offen se ,’ an d ‘crim in al of fen se ’ are

al l sa id to be syno nym ou s, an d or di na ril y us ed in te rch an ge ab ly.” (fo ot no te om it te d) ).

His to ric al ly, co ur ts an d co m m en ta to rs ha ve de fin ed of fen se s in te rm s of th e es se nt ia l

fact s— or el em en ts —n eed ed to im po se or in crea se pu ni sh m en t. See App ren di v. New

Je rs ey

, 53 0 U.S. 46 6, 50 1- 18 (2 00 0) (Tho m as

, J., co nc ur rin g) (s ur ve y in g “ [a] lo ng

li ne of es se nt ia ll y un ifo rm au th or it y

. . . st ret ch in g fro m th e earl ie st re p o r t e d c a se s

aft er th e fo un di ng un ti l well in to th e 2 0 t h c e nt ur y ” an d co nc lu di ng th at su ch

“au t h or it y es ta bl is he s th at a ‘crim e’ in cl ud es ev ery fact th at is by la w a ba si s fo r

im po si ng or i nc reas in g p un is hm en t” ). Und er t hi s v ie w, id en ti fy in g t he ele m en ts of

an of fen se req ui res an as se ss m en t of th e fact s th at are ne ces sa ry to im po se a pa rti cu la r

pu ni sh m en t. If a p a r t i c u la r fact res ul ts in an in crea se in th e st at ut or y m ax im um

pu ni sh m en t th e co ur t m ay im po se

, th en th at fact is an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e

(... con ti nue d) 5

st at e off ic er s to pre vent the enf

orc ement of an unc ons ti tut ion al st at ute ); however

, the Pet it ion er woul d li kely

have to ar gue tha t his exe cut ion is unl awf ul bec aus e of his int el le ct ual dis abi li ty, not bec aus e any st at ute is

unc ons ti tut ion al

. I n li ght of the se con si der at ion s, it is fa r fr om cl ear tha t a dec la ra tor y j udgm ent act ion wil l

pro vide a viabl e a venue f or re li ef

.

-8-of

fen se

, irr es pe ct iv e of th e la be ls an d te ch ni cal it ie s of a pa rti cu la r st at ut or y reg im e.

6

Id

. at 50 1 (“ [I]f th e le gi sl at ur e de fin es so m e co re cri m e an d th en pr ov id es fo r

in crea si ng th e pu ni sh m en t of th at cri m e up on a fin di ng of so m e ag gr av at in g fact [,]

. . . th e co re crim e an d th e ag gr av at in g fact to ge th er con st it ut e an ag gr av at ed cri m e,

jus t as m uc h as gr an d la rcen y is an ag gr av at ed fo rm of pe ti t la rcen y

. The ag gr av at in g

fact is an ele m en t o f th e ag gr av at ed cri m e.”); se e al so id . at 4 95 (m ajor it y op in io n)

.

Thi s un de rs ta nd in g ha s be en co nf irmed by rece nt Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t

cas es ad dr es si ng wha t co ns ti tu te s an “ of fen se ” in th e c o n t e x t o f th e de at h pe na lt y

. In Ri ng v. Ariz on a, 53 6 U.S. 58 4, 60 9 (2 00 2)

, th e Co ur t he ld th at Ariz on a’s st at ut or y

de at h pen al ty sc he m e vi ol at ed th e de fen da nt ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a fai r tri al

by al lo win g th e se nt en ci ng jud ge

, rat he r th an th e jury, to de te rm in e th e ex is te nc e of

th e ag gr av at in g fact or s ne ces sa ry fo r im po si ti on of th e de at h pe na lt y

. Alt ho ug h th e

st at ut or y ag gr av at in g fact or s in th e Ariz on a pe na l cod e were tech ni cal ly se nt en ci ng

co ns id erat io ns rat he r th an pa r t o f t h e un de rlyin g fir st de gr ee m ur de r of fen se

, th e

Co ur t reas on ed th at th e fact or s “ op erat e[d ] as ‘the fu nc ti on al eq ui va le nt of an el em en t

of a gr eat er of

fen se ,’ ” whi ch req ui red th at th ey be fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t

by a j ur y , no t a ju dg e. Id . (qu ot in g Ap pr en di , 53 0 U.S. at 49 4 n .19 ).

In Sat ta zah n v. Pen ns y lv an ia

, 53 7 U.S. 10 1, 11 1- 12 (2 00 3)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

reaf fir m ed th is co nc ep t. “ [I]n th e co nt ex t of cap it al -s en te nc in g p r o c e ed in gs ,” th e

Co ur t ru le d, “ th e un de rlyin g of fen se of ‘m

ur de r’ is a di st in ct

, le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se

of ‘m ur de r pl us on e or m or e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Id

. at 11 1; se e al so id

. at

11 2 (“‘[M]urd er pl us on e or m or e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces ’ is a se pa rat e of fen se

fro m ‘ m ur de r’ si mpl ic it er .”). App lying th is pri nc ip le , th e Co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t i f a

de fen da nt is “ acq ui tt ed ” of ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces in a pr io r tri al

, th en

“ do ub le -jeo pa rd y pr ot ect io ns at ta ch to th at ‘acqu it ta l’ on th e of fen se of ‘m

ur de r pl us

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce(s ).’” Id. at 11 2. 7

T o il lus tr at e, unde r our sen te nci ng sch eme, tr ia l cou rt s m ay sen te nce a def end ant anywher e wit hin 6

the app li cab le sen te nci ng ra nge by con si der ing any m it igati ng or enh anc ement fa ct ors

. See genera ll y Sta te

v. Bis e, 380 S

. W

. 3 d 682 (T enn

. 2012 ). But bec aus e tr ia l cou rt s m ay not impose a sen te nce beyond the

m axi m um of the st at uto ry ra nge bas ed upon suc h fa ct o r s

, the y do not qua li fy as el ements or giv e ri se to a

dis ti nct of

fe nse . Fa ct s or ci rc um st anc es tha t i ncr eas e pu nis hm ent beyond t he s ta tut ory m axi m um —whi ch

do qua li fy as el ements— m ust be fou nd by a j ury beyond a re aso nab le doub t. See Appr end i, 530 U.S. at 490.

T he Six th Cir cui t Cour t of Appea ls has al so re cognized the fa ct tha t in cap it al cas es, the “of fe nse ” 7

at is sue enc om

pas ses any sen te nci ng con si der at ion nec ess ar y for imposi ti on of the dea th pen al ty. See

, e.g.,

(c ont inu ed.. .)

-9-Und er Ten ne ss ee la w, th e fact s n eces sa ry fo r im po si ng th e de at h pe na lt y

in cl ud e gu il t of fir st de gr ee m ur de r, as de fin ed by Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n

39 -1 3- 20 2( a) (2 01 0)

, as well as at le as t on e of th e se ve nt een ag gr av at in g 8

ci rcu m st an ces se t ou t in Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 39 -1 3

- 2 0 4 (i) (2 01 0)

. Abs en t at le as t on e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce, th e m ax im um st at ut or y pu ni sh m en t fo r

fir st de gr ee m

ur de r is li m it ed to li fe im

pr is on m en t. Ten n. Co de Ann

. § 39 -1 3- 20 4( i).

9

Hen c e

, t h e fact of at le as t on e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce is th e el em en t th at

di st in g u i s h e s th e of

fen se of m

ur de r res ul ti ng in th e de at h pe na lt y fro m m ur de r

res ul ti ng in li fe im

pr is on m en t. See Sat ta zah n, 53 7 U.S. at 11 2. The de ci si on of th e

Gen eral Ass em

bl y to pl ace th e ag gr av at ed ci rcu m st an ce req ui rem en t in a se nt en ci ng

pr ov is io n do es no t m ean th at it is no t an el em en t of th e of fen se at is su e or th at m

ur de r

res ul ti ng in th e de at h pe na lt y is no t a di st in ct of fen se

. See App ren di

, 53 0 U.S. at 49 5

(“ [M]erel y be cau se th e st at e le gi sl at ur e pl aced it s ha te cri m e se nt en ce en h a n c er

wit hi n th e se nt en ci ng pr ov is io ns of th e cri m in al co de do es no t m ean th at th e fin di ng

of a bi as ed pu rp os e to in ti m id at e is no t an ess en ti al ele m en t o f th e o ffen se .”).

The m ajor it y na rro wly in te rp ret s th e te rm “ of fen se ” as it is us ed in Ten ne ss ee

Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ), reject in g th e Pet it io ne r’s arg um en t th at he

sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to reo pe n hi s po st -co nv ic ti on pr o c eed in gs ba se d up on ne w

(... con ti nue d) 7

Davis v. Mi tc hel l, 318 F.3d 682, 687 (6t h Cir

. 2003 ) (“ [A] gg ra vatin g fa ct ors

. . . ar e t h e el ements of the

m urd er of fe nse th at m ake th e de fe nda nt dea th el igibl e.” ).

T enn ess ee Code Annot at ed s ect ion 39- 13- 202( a) def ine s f ir st degre e murder as : 8

(1) A pr emedit at ed a nd i nte nti ona l kil li ng of a not her ;

(2) A kill ing of ano the r comm it te d in the per pet ra ti on of or at te m pt to per pet ra te any fi rs t

degree m urd er

, act of te rr orism, ar son

, ra pe, rob ber y, bur glary, the ft

, kidnap pin g, agg ra vated

chi ld abu se, agg ra vated chi ld neglec t, ra pe of a chi ld, agg ra vated ra pe of a chi ld or ai rc ra ft

pir acy; o r

(3) A kil li ng of ano the r comm it te d as the re sul t of the unl awf ul thr owin g, pla ci ng or

dis cha rging of a de st ruc ti ve device or bomb.

T he fa ct tha t the fi ndi ng of an agg ra vatin g ci rc um st anc e inc re ase s the m axi m u m s t at uto ry 9

puni shment avail abl e dis ti nguish es agg ra vatin g ci rc um st anc es fr om m ore rou ti ne sen te nci ng con si der at ion s,

whic h m ay enh anc e a sen te nce wit hin the app li cab le ra nge but do not inc re ase the m axi m um puni shment to

whic h a def

end ant m ay be sub

j ect ed. Sent enc ing con si der at ion s wit hin the la tt er cat egory do not qua li fy as

el ements of the of

fe nse

.

-10-sc ie nt ifi c ev id en ce sh owi ng th at he is act ua ll y in no cen t of th e o ffen se of “ cap it al

m ur de r.” In so do in g, th e m ajor it y ob se rv es th at Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n

39 -1 3- 20 2 de fin es fir st d e gr ee m ur de r, whe reas th e pr oc ed ur es fo r se nt en ci ng a

de fen da nt co nv ic te d of fir st de gr ee m ur de r are se t ou t in se ct io n 39 -1 3- 20 4. In li gh t

of th is st at ut or y sc he m e, th e m a jo r i t y c o n c lu de s th at “ [i]t is cl ear

. . . th at th e

un de rlyin g ‘offen se ’ is ‘firs t de gr ee m ur de r, ’ an d th at th e de at h pe na lt y is a

se nt en ci ng co ns id erat io n ra th er t ha n a n i nd ep en de nt off en se .”

The m ajor it y ’s co nc lu si on hi ng es on th e as su m pt io n th at a fact pr ov ed at

se nt en ci ng can ne ve r qu a l i f y a s pa rt of an of

fen se

. Co ns is te nt wit h th e au th or it ie s

di sc us se d ab ov e, I wou ld pr efer to de fin e of fen se s acco rd in g to th ei r el em en ts

. Bec au s e t h e “ ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce” req ui rem en t se t ou t in Ten ne ss ee Co de

Ann ot at ed se ct io n 39 -1 3- 20 4( i) co ns ti tu te s an el em en t of th e cap it al of fen se an d m

us t

be pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, in m y vi ew, mu r d e r res ul ti ng in th e de at h

pe na lt y is a se pa rat e of fen se f r o m mu rd er res ul ti ng in li fe im pr is on m en t. See

Sat ta zah n, 53 7 U.S. at 11 2; Ri ng

, 53 6 U.S. at 60 9; se e al so App ren di

, 53 0 U.S. at 50 1

(Tho m as , J., co nc ur rin g)

.

The m ajor it y al so re lie s upon se ve ral fed eral cas es co ns tru in g th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96 (“ AEDPA”). Si m il ar to Ten ne ss ee Co de

Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ), th e AEDPA co nt ai ns pr ov is io ns th at ba r cl ai m s

fo r ha be as co rp us rel ie f in “ se co nd or su cces si ve ” pe ti ti on s un le ss th e pe ti ti on er can

sa ti sf y cert ai n ex cep ti on s, on e of whi ch req ui res ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce

es ta bl is hi ng th at “ no reas on ab le fact fin de r” wou ld ha ve fo un d th e pe ti ti on er “ gu il ty

of th e of fen se ,” se e 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 ( h ) ( 1 ) (2 00 6)

, or “ gu il ty of th e un de rlyin g

of fen se ,” se e i d

. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ). Fed eral au th or it ie s, ho wev er, are no t as

un ifo rm ly su pp or ti ve of th e m ajor it y ’s po si ti on as t he op in io n s ug ge st s. In th e fir st

fed eral cas e ci te d b y th e m ajor it y , He nd ers on , 6 26 F.3 d at 77 9- 81 , t he Fif th Cir cu it

de cl in ed to reco gn iz e an “ act ua l in no cen ce” ex cep ti on to th e AEDP A s t a t u te of

li m it at io ns ba se d up on an un ti m el y cl ai m of in te ll ect ua l d i s ab il it y

. Of no te

, Hen de rs on ha d no th in g to do wi t h th e AEDPA’ s pr ov is io ns co nc ern in g su cces si ve

pe ti ti on s an d m ad e no di st in ct io n be twee n of fen s e s an d se nt en ci ng

. Rat he r, th e 1 0

is su e in th at cas e was whe th er to ap pl y th e co m m on la w act ua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on

to th e AEDPA’ s st at ut e of li m it at io ns

, whi ch

, un li ke Ten n e s s e e Co de Ann ot at ed

I n fa ct

, the Fif

th Cir cui t had grant ed Hende rs on per m is si on to fi le a suc ces si ve hab eas pet it ion in 1 0

a pr ior dec is ion . Se e I n r e Hen der son , 462 F.3d 413 , 417 (5 th Cir . 200 6).

-11-se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ), do es no t in cl ud e an act ua l in no cen ce pr ov is io n. W hi le th e

Fi fth C i r c u i t d ecl in ed to reco gn iz e an act ua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on to th e AEDPA’ s

st at ut e o f l i mita ti on s, a m ajor it y of th e fed eral ci rcu it s th at ha ve co ns id ered th e

qu es ti on ha ve di sa gr eed wit h th e co nc lu si on in Hen de rs on

. See Lee v. Lam pe rt, 65 3

F.3 d 92 9, 93 2 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ); San do va l v. Jo ne s, 44 7 F. App ’x 1, 4- 5 (1 0t h

Ci r. 20 11 ); San Mar ti n v. McNe il

, 63 3 F.3 d 12 57

, 12 67 -6 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ); Turn er

v. Ro m an ows ki , 40 9 F . App ’x 92 2, 9 26 (6t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

The m ajor it y al so rel ie s up on In re Dean

, 34 1 F.3 d 12 47

, 12 48 -4 9 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 03 ), an d Hop e v. Uni te d St at es

, 10 8 F.3 d 11 9, 12 0 (7 th Ci r. 19 97 ). The se cas es

bo th in vo lv ed su cces si ve ha be as pe ti ti on s s eek in g t o co ll at eral ly atta ck no n- cap it al

s e n t en ces th at ha d be en en ha nc ed by vi rtu e of pr io r co nv ic ti on s. In each cas e

, t h e

co ur t fo un d t ha t t he st at ut or y lan gu ag e “ gu il ty of th e o ffen se ” p erm it te d c ha ll en ge s

to th e cri m es of co n v i c t i on bu t no t to se nt en ces

. In re Dean

, 34 1 F.3 d at 12 48 -4 9;

Hop e, 10 8 F.3 d at 12 0. Bu t be cau se th es e were n o n

- c a p i t al cas es in vo lv in g

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts th at di d n ot in crea se th e m ax im um st at ut or y pu ni sh m en t,

th ey di d no t in vo lv e an y fact pr ov ed at se nt en ci ng th at qu al ifi ed as an el em en t of th e

of fen se at is su e. As a res ul t, th es e cas es pr ov id e li tt le gu id an ce as to whe th er th e te rm

“ of fen se ” pr op erl y en co m

pa ss es al l el em en ts of th e of fen se at is su e, ev en th os e, su ch

as ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces

, whi ch are fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t by a jury

du rin g th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. See Sawy er v. W h i t l e y, 5 05 U.S. 33 3, 34 1 (1 99 2)

( e x p la in in g th at “ [i]n th e co nt ex t of a no nc ap it al cas e, th e co nc ep t of ‘actu al

in no cen ce’ is eas y to gr as p,” whe reas “ [i]t is m or e di ffi cu lt to de ve lo p an an al og ou s

fram ewo rk

when de al in g wi th a de fen da nt who ha s b een sen te nc ed to de at h” ).

Adm it te dl y

, ot he r cas es ha ve refu se d to al lo w su cces si ve ha be as p e t i t i on s

as se rti ng se nt en ci ng cl ai m s, ev en in de at h pe na lt y cas es

. See, e.g

., In re W eb st er, 60 5

F.3 d 25 6, 25 7- 59 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ); In re Jo ne s, 13 7 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). 1 1

Nota bly, in I n re We bst er

, the co u r t s p e c i fi ed tha t it did not m ean “t o sugg est tha t a pri son er is 1 1

j uri sdi ct ion al ly bar re d fr om see king s ucc ess ive r eview whe re he con te st s a fa ct ual pre dic at e of his cap it al

m urd er con victi on, wit hout whic h he woul d have bee n guilt y onl y of non-capi ta l m urd er .” 605 F.3d at 258

n.5. As exp la ine d bel ow, I bel ie ve the Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s int el le ct ual dis abi li ty cl ai m ef fe ct ively con te st s his

con victi on f

or m urd er re sul ti ng in t he d eat h penal ty bec aus e he has as ser te d a cl ai m th at , if pr oven, woul d

re m ove the dea th pen al ty as an o pti on.

Othe r fe der al cas es re

j ect ing suc ces si ve hab eas pet it ion s in dea t h p e n al ty cas es invol ve cl ai m s

c h al le nging e xec uti on pro toc ol. See

, e.g., I n re J one s, 137 F.3d at 1274 ; Gre ena wal t v. St ewar t, 105 F.3 d

(c ont inu ed.. .)

-12-Bu t fed eral co ur ts are no t in ag reem en t on th is is su e. In Tho m ps on v. Cal de ro n, th e

Nin th Ci rcu it , s it ti ng en ba nc , s pe ci fic al ly rejec te d an in te rp ret at io n of th e AEDPA

th at wou ld cat eg or ic al ly ba r su cces si ve se nt en ci ng cl ai m s in cap it al cas es

. 15 1 F.3 d

91 8, 92 3- 24 & n.4 (9 th Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ) (en ba nc ). W it ho ut refe ren ce to th e la be ls

em pl oyed by th e m

ur de r st at ut e at is su e, th e co ur t fo un d th at “ t h e ‘u nd erl y in g

of fen se ’ in a de at h pe na lt y cas e is cap it al m ur de r rat he r th an m erel y ho m ic id e.” Id

. 1 2

at 92 4. Bec au se Tho m

ps on ha d as se rte d a cl ai m th at

, if pr ov en

, wou ld ne ga te th e so le

ag gr av at in g fact or th at m ad e hi m el ig ib le fo r th e de at h pe na lt y

, th e co ur t fo un d th at

he ha d st at ed a vi ab le cl ai m of act ua l in no cen ce of th e of fen se at is su e. Id .; se e al so

Bab bi tt v. W oo df

or d, 17 7 F.3 d 74 4, 74 6 (9 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s ta ti ng th at th e

AEDPA’ s act ua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on to th e ba r on su cces si ve cl ai m s “ pe rm i t [s ] a

pe ti ti on er to est ab li sh by cl ear and co nv in ci ng ev id en ce t ha t, ‘bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al

erro r, no reas on ab le juro r wou ld ha ve fo un d th e pe ti ti on er el ig ib le fo r th e de at h

pe na lt y un de r th e ap pl ic ab le st at e la w’ ” (q uo ti ng Tho m ps on

, 15 1 F.3 d at 92 3) ); Bryan

A. St ev en so n, The Po li ti cs of Fear an d Deat h: Su cces si ve Pro bl em s in Cap it al Fed eral

Hab eas Co rp us Cas es , 7 7 N.Y.U. L. R ev . 6 99 , 77 7 (2 00 2) (“ So m e co ur ts vi ew [th e

AEDPA’ s act ua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on to th e ba r on su cces si ve cl ai m s] as ne ces sa ril y

in cl u d in g cl ai m s of in no cen ce of th e de at h pe na lt y

, whi le ot he r co ur ts read th e

pr ov is io n m

uc h m or e na rro wly as li m it ed to cla im s o f in no cen ce of th e cri m e. The

de ci si on s in th e fo rm er, m or e pr ot ect i v e c a te go ry wou ld se em to co m po rt m os t

cl os el y wit h t he av ai la bl e in di ci a o f le gi sl at iv e in te nt .” (fo ot no te s o m it te d) ). 1 3

(... con ti nue d) 1 1

1287

, 1288 (9t h Cir

. 1997 ) (pe r cur ia m ). T hes e cas es ar e dis ti nguish abl e fr om cas es invol ving cl ai m s of

int el le ct ual dis abi li ty bec aus e a suc ces sf ul exe cut ion pro toc ol cha ll enge only re sul ts in a stay of exe cut ion

pen din g ado pti on of a la wful pro toc ol, see Gre ena wal t, 105 F.3d at 1287

, wher eas a suc ces sf ul int el le ct ual

dis abi li ty cl ai m re sul ts in ine li gibil it y for the dea th sen te nce

. I n oth er word s, unli ke int el le ct ual dis abi li ty,

unl awf ul exe cut ion pr oto col at bes t d el ays ra the r t han negat es a s ent enc e of dea th.

I n add it ion

, ra the r tha n fi ndi ng tha t the inc lus ion of the la nguage “guil ty of the unde rl ying off ens e” 1 2

was m ean t to pro vide a nar rowe r exc ept ion tha n the comm on la w act ual inn oce nce exc ept ion (a s the m aj ori ty

con cl ude s i n t his ca se) , th e c our t r eas one d t hat th e l anguage was in cl ude d becau se the AEDPA pr ovisi ons

per ta ini ng to suc ces si ve pet it ion s, unl ike the comm on la w exc ept ion

, “ap pl[ y] to al l hab eas pet it ion s, not j ust

cap it al hab eas pet it ion s.” I d. a t 9 23- 24.

Othe r fede ra l cour ts of appe al s have re cognized but dec li ned to re sol ve the is sue of whet her the 1 3

AEDPA’s pro visio ns on suc ces si ve hab eas pet it ion s bar a cl ai m pre m is ed on new eviden ce e s t abl is hin g

ine li gi bil it y for the dea th pen al ty. See

, e.g., Bryan v. Mu ll in, 100 F. App’ x 783, 787 (10 th Cir

. 2004 )

(a cknowle dging tha t it is unc le ar “whe the r a cha ll enge to the pro pri et y of a dea th sen te nce is cognizabl e

unde r § 2244 (b) (2) (B) (i i) ” but fi ndi ng it unne ces sar y to “r eso lve tha t dif fi cul t que st ion ”) ; LaFe vers v.

(c ont inu ed.. .)

-13-Unl ik e th e m ajor it y

, I wou ld ho ld th at th e te rm “ of fen se ,” as us ed in Ten ne ss ee

Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40

- 3 0 -1 17 (a)( 2)

, in cl ud es al l el em en ts of th e of fen se in

qu es ti on

, in cl ud in g th e “ ag gr av at in g circ um st an ce” ele m en t in cap it al cas es

. In m y

as se ss m en t, t he ter m

“ of fen se ” en co m

pa ss es m ur de r res ul ti ng in th e d eat h p en al ty.

Thi s in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e co m po rts wit h th e tra di ti on al un de rs ta nd in g of wha t

co ns ti tu te s an of

fen se an d, of gr eat im

po rta nc e, pr es erv es th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e

st at ut e by av oi di ng an in te rp ret at io n th at de pr iv es de at h ro w in m at es of a m ean in gf ul

op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t cl ai m s bas ed up on ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce of in te ll ect ua l

di sa bi li ty.

Rea di ng th e te rm “ of

fen se ” in th is m an ne r, th e qu es ti on be co m es whe th er

de m on st rat in g in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty es ta bl i s h e s act ua l in no cen ce of th e of fen se of

m ur de r res ul ti ng in th e de at h pe na lt y

. I be li ev e t h a t it do es

. W hi le in te ll ect ua l

di sa bi li ty do es no t di rect ly co nt rad ic t th e el em en ts of t h e of fen se (in cl ud in g an y

ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces ), it is in co m pa ti bl e wit h th e im

po si ti on of a de at h se nt en ce

un de r Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 39 -1 3- 20 3, as well as ou r st at e an d fed eral

co ns ti tu ti on s, effe ct iv el y ne ga ti ng th e “ ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce” el em en t of th e

of fen se

.

II

. In su m m ary, in te rp ret in g Ten ne ss ee Co de Ann ot at ed se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 )

so as to ba r th e Pet it io ne r’s in te ll ec t u a l d i s a b il it y cl ai m ba se d up on ne w ev id en ce

co nf li ct s wit h hi s rig ht of du e pr oc es s by de pr iv in g hi m of a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty

to es ta bl is h in el ig ib il it y f or th e de at h se nt en ce. A p ro pe r in te rp ret at io n of th e te rm

“ of fen se ” in se ct io n 40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ) en com pass es al l el em en ts of th e of fen se at is su e,

in cl ud in g th e “ ag gr av at in g circ um st an ce” req ui rem en t for th e im po si ti on of a de at h

se nt en ce.

It m ay be th at th e Pet it io ne r wou ld ul ti m at el y be un ab le to sa ti sf y th e st at ut or y

req ui rem en ts fo r de m on st rat in g i nt el le ct ua l di sa bi li ty; ho wev er, to int erp ret se ct io n

40 -3 0- 11 7( a)(2 ) in a m an ne r th at de pr iv es a pe ti ti on er of an ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d

(... con ti nue d) 1 3

Gibs on, 238 F.3d 1263

, 1267 (10 th Cir

. 2001 ) (s ame); I n re V ia l, 115 F.3d 1192

, 1198 & n.12 (4t h Cir

. 1997 )

(e n ban c) (ho ldi ng t h at the st at uto ry exc ept ion to the bar on suc ces si ve hab eas pet it ion s is genera ll y

una vaila ble to ass er t sen te nci ng er ror s, but dec li nin g to add re ss “t he que st ion of whet her

, unde r the AEDPA,

an i ndi vidual sub

j ect to a s ent enc e of

dea th m ay ass er t t he e xis te nce of new eviden ce est abl is hin g t hat th e

sen te nce was imposed imprope rl y”).

-14-an ad

jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts ris ks pu tt in g to d eat h an in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed

in di vi du al in vi ol a t i on of th e st at e an d fed eral co ns ti tu ti on s. I wou ld

, th eref or e,

rem an d to th e tr ia l co ur t fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts of th e in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty

cl ai m

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GARY R. W ADE, CHIEF JUSTICE

-15-