FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 03 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Inre: W ILLIAM T. TURNER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App li cat io n fo r Leav e to Fil e a Sec on d o r Su cces si ve Hab eas Co rp us Pet it io n, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re CARNES, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . BY THE COURT: Fl or id a d eat h ro w in m at e Will ia m T. Turn er h as ap pl ie d, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(A), fo r anord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r a
se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti onfora writof h ab eas co rp us . Spe ci fic al ly, Turn er
se ek s l eav e to ass ertin a se co ndfed eral habe as pe ti ti on a cl ai m th athe is in el ig ib le fo r th e d eat h p en al ty becau se he is m en ta ll y ret ard ed . Afterrev ie w, we den y Turn er’s ap pl ic at io n. I. BACKG ROUNDIn19 85 , Turn er was co nv ic te d o f two co un ts of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r fo r st ab bi ng to de ath h is est ran ge d wi fe Sh irl ey an d h er fri en d J oyce Bro wn. Turne r
was sen te nc edto li fe i m

pr is on m en t fo r hi s wi fe’s m ur de r an d s en te nc edto de ath fo r Bro wn’s. Turn er was 39 y ears ol d a t t he ti m e o f th e m ur de rs . Turn er h adbe en
m arri edto Sh irl ey

form or e th an a de cad e whe n h e k il le d h er, an d t he y ha d t wo ch il dr en to ge th er. Turne r was a hi gh sch oo l g radua te , gra du at in g wi th in th e th ird qu art il e o f hi s cl as s an d c om pe ti ng on th e sc ho ol ’s foo tb al l t eam . Turn er at te nd ed jun io r co ll eg e an d l at er joi ne d the Air Fo rce a ndserve d i n Vi etna m . Turn er h ada st ab le job hi st ory

an d re qu ire d l it tl e supe rv is io n a t wo rk . Turn er o wne d h is own ho m e, whi ch he ke ptup well an d re pa ire d h im se lf. A. Sta te Di rect Appea l a nd Co ll at era l Pro ceed in gs On d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edTurn er’s m

ur de r
co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . Turn er v . Sta te , 53 0 S o. 2 d 4 5 (F la . 19 87 ). Turn er th en fil eda m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es pu rs ua ntto Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, wh ic h t he st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d. Tu rn er ap pe al edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt an d fi le d ast at e h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f Turne r’s Ru le

23.8 50 m ot io n a ndde ni edhi s s ta te habe as pe ti ti on . Turn er v . Dug ge r, 61 4 S o. 2 d

10 75 (Fl a. 19 92 ). B. Turn er’s § 2 25 4 Pet iti on On J ul y 19 , 19 93 , Turn er fi le d h is ori gi na l 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 fed eral habe as pe ti ti on in th e d is tri ctco urt. Alt ho ug h i t ra is edele ve n c la im s, Tu rn er’s p et it io n di d n otass ertth athe was m en ta ll y ret ard edan d t he refo re i ne li gi bl e fo r th e d eat h pe na lty . 1 On J un e 2 0, 2 00 2, wh il e Turne r’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n was pe nd in g i n d is tri ct
co urt, t he Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d At ki ns v. Vi rg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 24 2 (2 00 2) , con cl ud in g t ha t t he ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s v io la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Si x d ay s l at er, o n J un e 2 6, 2 00 2, t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d Turn er’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on on th e m eri ts in a co m pr eh en si ve 29 1- pa ge ord er. The di st ric t co urt’s 2 00 2 o rd er ac kn owl ed ge d At ki ns an d d is m is se d Tu rn er’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on wit ho utpre

jud ic e to hi s ri gh t t o ra is e an Atk in s cl ai m (1) aft er ex haus ti ng
su ch a cl ai m

in st at e co urts an d (2 ) if

he rece iv es th e req ui si te au th or iz at io n fr om th is Co urt t o fi le a su cces si ve pe ti ti on un de r § 2 24 4( b) (3 ). The d is tri ctco urt t hu s 2

Turner did claim his trial counsel we re ine ffe ctive for not adequately

investigating a

nd 1 prese nting in the pe nalty

phase e vidence that Turner suffe red f

rom intellectual de ficits and lear ning disa biliti es. The district cour

t order sta ted: 2 [T] he Court w ill dismiss this case without pr ejudice to Petitioner’ s rig ht to raise an 3ex pr es sl y

co nd it io ne d i ts di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce o n two t hi ng s: ex haus ti on
an d c om pl ia nc e wit h § 22 44 (b )(3 ). Turn er t he n fi le d asec on d R ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n 3 in th e st at e tr ia l co urt o n Dec em be r 11 , 20 02 , ass ert in g an Atki ns cla im

. Turn er al so ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f hi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on . This Co urt af firm ed

. Turn er v . Cro sb y , 33 9 F .3d12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). As t o m en ta l re ta rd at io n a s a ba r to ex ecu ti on , th is Co urt re fu se d t o a dd res s an y Atk in s cl ai m

be cau se th atcla im

was st il l p en di ng in st at e co urt. Id . at 3 39 F.3dat 1 27 6 n .21 . In o th er wo rd s, we refu se d t o a dd res s t he Atk in s cl ai m in fed eral co urt b ecau se itha d n otbe en pr op erl y rai se d, p res en te d, an d d eci de d i n ast at e co urt p ro ceed in g. As to m en ta l ret ard at io n a s a m it ig at in g fa ct or , th is Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Tu rn er fa il edto sh ow hi s t ria l co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e in th e p en al ty pha se , po in ti ng ou t t ha t Tu rn er’s tri al co un se l d idin tro du ce ev id en ce o f hi s 7 2 IQ s co re an d b or de rli ne in te ll ig en ce: Tu rn e r . . . id en ti fie s hi s m en ta l ret ard at io n as a[n ] area in whi ch hi s co un se l sh ou ld ha ve in ve st ig at ed an d pr es en te d m it ig at in g ev id en ce. To
Atkins claim in a separ ate petition in this Court, afte r exhausting such a claim in the state courts, if he rec eives the requisite authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appe als to file a second or succe ssive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)( 3)(A)

. Additionally , the dismiss al without prejudice will not exc u se Petitioner from the oney ear limit ation period for filing a habea s petition in the fede ral courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)( 1).
In this reg ard, w e note that the district c ourt ruled c orre ctly beca use it had no authority

to 3 exempt the Atkins claim from the second or succe ssive petition requireme nts in § 2244(b). The district court simply

stated the obvious: the petitioner c ould file a sec ond or succ essive petition if the cour t of appe als permitted it, a stateme nt that goe s no further than the statute itself. 4th e ex te nt th at Turn er arg ue s th at ev id en ce of m en ta l ret ard at io n wou ld

pr ecl ud e hi s ex ecu ti on un de r Atk in s v. Virg in ia , we sp eci fic al ly de cl in e to ad dr es s an y Atk in s arg um e n t s as Turn er cu rren tl y ha s an Atk in s -b as ed Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n pe nd in g in a Fl or id a co urt. To th e ex te nt th at Turn er arg ue s th at m en ta l ret ard at io n act s as in di ci a of a di m in is he d cap aci ty, whi ch supp orts a fin di ng th at th e c r i me was co m m it te d un de r th e in flu en ce of ex tre m e m en ta l or em ot io na l di sturba nc e, su ch m it ig a t i n g ev id en ce al read y is en co m pa ss ed in hi s si m il ar cl ai m ba se d on tri a l c o u ns el ’s al le ge d fai lu re to pu t fo rth m it ig at in g ev id en ce reg ard in g se ve re m en ta l il ln es s at th e ti m e of th e m ur de rs . To th e ex te nt th at Turn er arg ue s th at ev id en ce of m en ta l ret ard at io n is by it se lf a m it ig at in g fact or , th e m os t im po rta nt ev id en ce in hi s Ap pe nd ix was pres en te d at tria l. Spec ifi cal ly, du rin g th e pe na lt y ph as e, tri al co un se l in tro du ced Turn er’s sc ho ol reco rd s, in cl ud in g th e fact th at he ha s sc or ed 72 on an IQ te st , an d [p s yc h i a tri st ] Dr. Mi ll er te st ifi ed th at Turn er was of “bo rd erl in e in te ll ig en ce.” The ne w ev id en ce in th e App en di x is lay te s t i mo n y , m os tl y th ro ug h fam il y m em be rs ’ affi da vi ts , st at in g, fo r ex am pl e, th at Turn er was “ sl ow to le arn ,” “ was no t ve ry br ig ht ,” an d “ was n’t qu it e rig ht .” Giv en Dr. Mi ll er’s te st im on y an d th at tri al co un se l pr es en te d Turn er’s actua l sc ho ol rec o r d s , w e co nc lu de th at tri al co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce cl earl y di d no t ris e to th e le ve l of in effe ct iv en es s . . . . Id . at 1 27 6 n .21 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . This 72 IQ sco re was fro m an“ Oti s t es t” in th e Duv al Co un ty Scho ol Bo ardreco rd s. C. Turn er’s Atk

in s Cl ai min St at e Cou rt Subs eque nt ly, as to Turn er’s s eco ndRu le 3.8 50 m ot io n, t he st at e tr ia l co urt de ni edTurn er’s Atk in s cl ai m an d o n S ep te m

be r 28 , 20 10 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed . Turn er v . Sta te , 46 So . 3d56 8 (F la . 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s ta te d t ha t Tu rn er h adno t m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng he

5ha d s ig ni fic an tl y suba ve rag e in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g, t he fir stof t he th ree p ro ng s of th e m en ta l re ta rd at io n d efi ni ti on . Id. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s tre ss edth at
on e ex pe rt d et erm in edTurn er’s IQ was 98 an d a no th er ex pe rt d et erm in editwas 10 8, b ot h wi th inth e av erag e in te ll ig en ce ra ng e: To pr ov e m en ta l ret ard at io n, a de fen da nt mu s t de m on st rat e: (1 ) signi fic an tl y suba ve rag e ge ne ral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g; (2 ) co nc urr ent de fic it s in a d ap t iv e be ha vi or ; an d (3 ) m an ife st at io n of th e co nd it io n be fo re ag e ei gh te en . See § 92 1.1 37 (1 ), Fla . Sta t. (2 00 7) . To s at is fy th e fir st pr on g, th e de fen da nt m us t es tabl is h th at he or sh e ha s an IQ of two or m or e st an da rd de vi at io ns be lo w th e m ean . Ch erry v. St at e, 95 9 So .2d 70 2, 71 3 ( F l a . 20 07 ). In acco rd an ce wit h Fl or id a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3.2 03 , th e tri al co urt ap po in te d two m en ta l he al th ex pe rts to ex am in e Turn er. One m en ta l he al t h ex pe rt de te rm in ed th at Turn er’s fu ll -s cal e IQ was 98 , an d th e ot he r ex pe rt de te rm in ed t ha t Turn er’s fu ll -s cal e IQ was 10 8. Bo th of th es e sc or es fel l withi n t h e av erag e in te ll ig en ce ran ge . Bec au se th e ex pe rt rep orts co nc lu si ve ly reb ut te d th e f i r s t
- p r on g of Turn er’s Atk in s cl ai m , th e tri al co urt di d no t err i n su m m ari ly den y in g Tu rn er’s cl ai m th athe was m en ta ll y

ret ard ed

. Id . On Feb ru ary 28 , 20 11 , th e Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Tu rn er’s certi or ari pe ti ti on
as to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on . Turn er v . Flo rid a, — S. Ct . —, 79 U.S.L.W . 34 03 , 79 U.S.L.W . 34 90 , 79 U.S.L.W . 34 92 (U.S. Feb . 28 , 20 11 ) (No

. 10 -8 47 ). On M arch 9, 2 01 1, Tu rn er fi le d h is ap pl ic at io n wi th th is Co urt fo r pe rm is si on to fil e a s eco ndfed eral habe as pe ti ti on . II . DISCUSSI ON

6A. Succ es si ve § 2 25 4 Pet iti on s

A st at e p ris on er wh o wi sh es to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve fed eral habe as
co rp us pe ti ti on m

us t m ov e th e co urt o f ap pe al s fo r an ord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t
co urt t o c on si de r su ch a pe ti ti on . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(A). W e m ay no t i ss ue
su ch anord er i f th e cl ai m s s ou gh t t o b e p res en te d i n the sec on d o r su cces si ve pe ti ti on were ra is edin a pr io r pe ti ti on . Id. § 22 44 (b )(1 ). Add it io na ll y , to be pe rm it te d t o p ur su e a n ew cl ai m in a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on , th e st at e pr is on er m

us t m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng th at : ( A ) t h e . . . cl ai m rel ie s on a ne w ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, mad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt, th at was pr ev io us ly una va il ab le ; o r (B)( i) th e factua l pr ed ic at e fo r th e cl ai m co ul d no t ha ve be en di sc ov ered pr ev io us ly thro ug h the ex erci se of due di li ge nc e; an d (ii ) th e fact s un de rlyin g th e cl ai m , i f pr ov en an d vi ewed in li gh t of th e ev id en c e a s a who le , wou ld be su ffi ci en t to es tabl is h by cl ear an d co n v i n c i ng ev id en ce th at , bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ld ha ve fo un d th e ap pl ic an t gu il ty of th e un de rlyin g of fen se . Id . § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(A)– (B). See als o i d. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(C) (“ The co urt o f ap pe al s m ay
au th or iz e th e fi li ng of asec on d o r su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n o nl y if i t d et erm in es th at th e ap pl ic at io n m ak es a pr im a fac ie sh owi ng th atth e ap pl ic at io n s at is fie s t he requi rem en ts of t hi s s ub se ct io n.” ).

7Here, Tu rn er’s Atk in s cl ai m was n otrai se d i n apri orfed eral habe as pe ti ti on , andsat is fie s § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A)’s req ui rem en t t ha t t he cla im be ba se d o n “ a
ne w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt, t ha t was pre vi ou sl y un av ai labl e.” In In r e Hol la da y , 33 1 F .3d 11 69 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), th is Co urt s ta te d t ha t “ th ere i s n o q ue st io n t ha t t he rul e
rece nt ly ann ou nc edby the Supr em e Co urt i n At ki ns —tha t t he ex ecu ti on of

m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s co ns ti tu te s ‘cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t’ in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t— is a ne w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law m ad e ret ro act iv e to
cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt t ha t was pre vi ou sl y un av ai labl e.” Id . at 1 17 2 (c it at io n o m it te d)

. 4 B. Rea so na bl e Li k el ih oo d o f Menta l Ret ar da tio n Requi rement Ourin qu iry do es no t en d t he re, h owe ve r. As we n ot edin Hol la da y , a st at e pr is on er s eek in g l eav e to fil e an Atk in s cl ai m ina se co nd§ 2 25 4 p et it io n m us t al so sh ow “ th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth athe is in factm en ta ll y ret ard ed ”: [O]ur fin di ng th at th e requi rem en ts ex pr es sl y se t fo rth in 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A) are sa ti sf ie d in th is cas e do es no t te rm in at e ou r an al y si s. In de ed , th es e requi rem en ts m erel y rep res en t th e m in im um sh owi ng th at

Be cause the Supreme Court a nnounced its Atkins decision a me re six day s befor e the 4 district court denie d Turner ’s § 2254 petition, we find, on the f acts a nd circ umstances of

this case , that the Atkins claim was “ previously unavailable ” to Turne r. 8H o l l a d a y m us t m ak e if we are to pe rm it hi m to fil e a se co nd o r su cces si ve pe ti ti on fo r a writ of habe as co rp us . S e e § 22 44 (b )(3 )(C) (“ The co urt of ap pe al s m ay au th or iz e th e fil in g of a se co nd or su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n on ly if it de te rm in es th at th e ap pl ic at io n m ak es a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th e app li cat io n sa ti sf ie s th e requi rem en ts of th is subs ect io n.” ). In th is cas e, we fin d it m an ife st ly ob vi ou s th at in or de r to m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at he is en ti tl ed to fil e a se co nd or su cces si ve pe ti ti on ba se d on [th e] Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on in Atk in s, Hol la da y al so m

us t de m on st rat e th at th ere is a reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at he is in factm en ta ll y

ret ard ed

. Hol la da y , 33 1 F .3dat 1 17 3. To d et erm in e whe th er t he reas on ab le -li ke li ho od -o f- 5

m en ta l-r et ard at io n s ta nd ardis m et , we m eas ur e th e st at e p ris on er’s ap pl ic at io n a nd

supp orti ng do cu m en ta ti on“ ag ai ns t t he en ti re re co rdin th [e] case ” an d a skwhet he r th e p ris on er h as m ad e “ a su ffi ci en t s ho win g o f po ss ib le m eri t t o warran t a f ul le r
ex pl or at io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt.” Id . at 1 17 3- 74 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. Doi ng so requi res us to co ns id er the de fin it io n o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n. InAtk in s, t he Supr em e Co urt n ot edth ataltho ug h d iff eren t s ta te s’ st atut ory de fin it io ns of m en ta l re ta rd at io n wer e n otid en ti cal , th ey “ ge ne ral ly con fo rm

to th e [Am eri can Ass oc ia ti on on Men ta l Re ta rd at io n (“ AAMR”) an d t he Am eri can Ps y ch ia tri c Ass oc ia ti on (“ APA”)] cli ni cal de fin it io ns .” Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 17

The Hollada

y Court rea soned, “Were it otherwise, then litera lly any prisoner unde r a 5 death se ntence could bringan Atkins claim in a sec ond or succ essive petition reg ardle ss of his or her intellig ence . No rational argument can possibly be made that this result is appropriate unde r § 2244(b).” I d. at 1173 n.1. 9n.2 2, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 50 n.2 2. Th e Supr em e Co urt al so li st edth e cl in ic al

de fin it io ns of m en ta l re ta rd at io n fo rm ul at edby the AAMR an d APA: The Am eri can Ass oc ia ti on on Men ta l Ret a rd at io n (AAMR) de fin es m en ta l ret ard at io n as fo ll ows : “ Men ta l ret a r d a ti on refe rs to subs ta nt ia l li m it at io ns in pr es en t fu nc ti on in g. It i s ch arac te riz ed by si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e in te ll ectua l func ti on in g, ex is ti ng co nc urren tl y wit h rel at ed li m it at io ns i n t w o o r m or e of th e fo ll owi ng ap pl ic ab le ad ap tiv e ski ll ar eas : co m

m un ic at io n, se lf- care , ho m e li vi ng , so ci al ski lls , co m m un it y us e, se lf- di rect io n, he al th an d sa fet y , fu nc ti on al acad em ic s, le is ur e, an d work. Men ta l ret ard at io n m an ife st s be fo re ag e 18 .” Men ta l Ret ard at io n: Defi ni ti on , Cl as si fic at io n, an d Sy st em s of Supp orts 5 (9 th ed .19 92 ). The Am eri can Ps y ch ia tri c Ass oc ia ti on ’s de fin it io n i s si m il ar: “ The es se nt ia l featur e of Men ta l Ret ard at io n is si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e ge ne ral i n t el le ctua l fu nc ti on in g (Cri te rio n A) th at is acco m pa ni ed by si gn ifi can t li m it at i o ns in ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on in g in at le as t two of th e fo ll owi ng sk il l area s: co m m un ic at io n, se lf- care , h o me li vi ng , so ci al /i nt erp ers on al sk il ls , u se of c o mm un it y res ou rces , s el f-d ire ct io n, fu nc ti on al acad em ic sk il ls , wo rk , le is ur e, he al th , an d sa fet y (Cri te rio n B )

. The on se t m

us t oc cu r be fo re ag e 18 y ears (Cri te rio n C). Men ta l Ret ard at io n ha s m an y di ffer en t et io lo gi es an d m ay be se en as a fin al co m m on pa th way of va rio us p a t h ol og ic al pr oc es se s th at affe ct th e fu nc ti on in g of th e cen tra l ne rv ou s syste m .” Diag no st ic an d St at is ti cal Ma nua l of Men ta l Dis or de rs 41 (4 th ed .20 00 ). “ Mi ld ” m en ta l ret ardat ion is typic al ly us ed to de sc rib e pe op le wit h an IQ le ve l of 50 -5 5 to ap pr ox im at el y

70 . Id., at42 -4 3. Id . at 3 08 n.3 , 12 2 S . Ct. at22 45 n.3 . As ou tl in edbe lo w, Flo rid a’s de fin it io n o f

m en ta l re ta rd at io n s ub st an ti al ly paral le ls th e cl in ic al de fin it io ns di sc us se d b y th e Supr em e Co urt i n At ki ns . C. Flo ri da ’s Defi ni tio n o f Menta l Ret ar da tio n

10In20 01 , eve n b efo re At ki ns , th e Fl or id a le gi sl atur e en act ed§ 9 21 .13 7,

Fl or id a St atut es , whi chpro hi bi te d e xe cu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s an d

es tabl is he d am etho d fo r de te rm in in g wh ic h c ap it al de fen da nt s ar e m en ta ll y ret ard ed . Sect io n 9 21 .13 7 d efi ne s “ m en ta ll y ret ard ed ” as (1) “ si gn ifi can tl y
suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g,” (2) “ ex is ti ng co nc urren tl y wit h de fic it s i n a dapt iv e b eh av io r,” an d (3 ) “ m an ife st eddu rin g the pe rio d fr om
co nc ep ti on to ag e 1 8.” Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 37 (1 ). The Fl or id a st atut e d efi ne s

“ si gn ifi can tl y

suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g” as “ pe rfo rm an ce tha t i s two or m or e st an dardde vi at io ns fro m th e m ean sco re o n [a n aut ho riz ed ] st an da rd iz edin te ll ig en ce t es t.” Id . Flo rid a co urts ha ve in te rp ret ed§ 9 21 .13 7( 1) ’s de fin it io n o f “ si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g” to m ean
an IQ sco re o f 70 or b el ow. Ph il li ps v. St at e, 98 4 S o. 2 d 5 03 , 51 0 (F la . 20 08 ). Sect io n 9 21 .13 7, h owe ve r, ap pl ie s o nl y to th os e d efen da nt s s en te nc edto de ath o n
oraft er i ts effe ct iv e d at e o f Ju ne 12 , 20 01 . Fla. St at . § 9 21 .13 7( 8) . Becau se Turn er was sen te nc edin 19 85 , th is Flo rid a st atut e d oe s n otap pl y to Turn er. Non ethe le ss , aft er At ki ns , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d F lo rid a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 .20 3, es tabl is hi ng th e p ro cedur e fo r al l capi ta l d efen da nt s rai si ng cla im s o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n a s a b ar t o e xe cu ti on . See Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.2 03 ; Am en dm en ts to Fla . R. Cri m . P. & Fla . R. App . P., 87 5 S o. 2 d 5 63 (Fl a.
1120 04 ). Ru le 3.2 03 ’s def in it io n o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n i s s ub st an ti al ly ide nt ic al to th atof § 92 1.1 37 an d t he cli ni cal de fin it io ns in Atk in s. Co m pa re Fl a. St at . § 92 1.1 37 (1 ), wit h F la . R. Cri m . P. 3.2 03 (b ); s ee al so Ph il li ps , 98 4 S o. 2 d a t 5 09

- 10

. Turn er’s s ta te po st co nv ic ti on Atk in s ch al le ng e p ro ceed edun de r Ru le 3.2 03

. 6 D. Ana ly si s o f Tur ner’ s Cl ai m s Whe n we wei gh Turn er’s ap pl ic at io n a ndsupp orti ng ev id en ce ag ai ns t t he

en ti re re co rdin th is cas e, we co nc lu de Turn er h as no t m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng a
reas on ab le li ke li ho odth athe is m en ta ll y ret ard ed . Firs t, Tu rn er h as no t s ho wn a
reas on ab le li ke li ho odth athe sat is fie s t he fir stpro ng of F lo rid a’s m en ta l ret ard at io n t es t, t ha t o f si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g. Turn er p rimaril y

po in ts to pe na lt y -p ha se tes ti m on y fro m : (1 ) a s ch oo l re co rd s
cu st od ia n, wh o t es ti fie d Tu rn er ea rn eda sc or e o f 72 onanIQ tes t t ak en when he

was ingra de sch oo l; an d (2 ) fo ren si c p sychi atris t Dr. Ern es t M il le r, who tes ti fie d
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203(b) pr ovides: 6 Def inition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental reta rdation” means signific antly subaver ag e g ener al in te ll e c tu a l f

u n c tioning exis ting concur

rently with defic its in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conce ption to ag e 18. The term “significa ntly subaver ag e gene ral int ellectua l functioning ,” for the purpose of this rule, means perf ormanc e that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligenc e test authorized by the Depa rtment of Children and Family Service s in rule 65G-4.011 of the Florida Ad m i n i s trative Code. The term “ada

ptive behavior ,” fo r t h e p u rpose of this rule, means the eff ectivene ss or degree with which an individual meets the standar d s o f persona l independe nce and social responsibility expected of his or her ag e, cultural g roup, and community

. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.203(b). 12he be li ev edTurn er was “ of bo rd erl in e in te ll ig en ce,” wh ic h m ean t “ a st at e o f be in g
m arg in al be twee n n orm al in te ll ig en ce an d . . . [i]nt el le ctua ll y ha nd ic ap pe d o r ret ard ed .” Howev er, thi s IQ s co re i s n otbe lo w th e 7 0- IQ cu to ff Fl or id a h as
es tabl is he d fo r th e in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g p ro ng of the m en ta l re ta rd at io n t es t. See At ki ns , 53 6 U.S. at31 7, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 50 (“ [W] e le av e to th e St at es th e ta sk of de ve lo pi ng ap pr op ria te way s t o e nf or ce t he co ns ti tu ti on al res tri ct io n upo n t he ir

ex ecu ti on of s en te nc es .” (b rack et s o m it te d) ). And , Dr. Mil le r op in edno t t ha t 7 Turn er was m en ta ll y

ret ard ed , bu t t ha t h e in st eadfel l b etween no rm al in te ll ig en ce
an d m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Mo reo ve r, in st at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs pu rs ua ntto Ru le 3.2 03 , Turn er was tes te d a ndearn edIQ sco res of 9 8 a nd10 8, i nd ic at in g a ve rag e in te ll ig en ce. Andth e fac t t ha t Tu rn er g radua te d fr om hi gh sch oo l i n t he th ird 8 qu art il e o f hi s cl as s an d a tt en de d ju ni orco ll eg e al so refu te s Tu rn er’s co nt en ti on

Florida ’s 70-I Q cutoff

is within t he I Q ra

ng e for mental re tardation cited by the Supreme 7 Court in Atkins. S ee Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308 n.3, 122 S . Ct. at 2245 n.3 (“‘Mild’ menta l reta rdation is ty

pically used to describe people w ith an I Q level of 50-55 to approximately

70.”); id. at 309 n.5, 122 S. Ct . at 2245 n.5 (“ It is estimated that betwee n 1 and 3 per cent of the population has an I Q betwe en 70 and 75 or lower, which is ty

pically considere d the cutoff

I Q score for the intellec tual function prongof the menta l retardation definition.”). Turner maintains we should ignore the se two I Q score s beca use I Q score s vary

over a 8 person’ s lifetime and the r eleva nt time frame a

t which Turne r’s I Q should be consider ed is at the time of the murder s. Even assumingarguendo that both these pr opositions were true , they would not help Turner

meet his burden, a s he prof fer s only an I Q score from Turne r’s grade -school y ear s, and Turne r wa s 39 y ear s old at the time of the murde rs. 13th athe su ffer edfro m si gn ifi can tl y

suba ve rag e in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g. Se e In re Hick s, 3 75 F.3d12 37 , 12 40 -4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (co nc lu di ng th ere was no
reas on ab le li ke li ho odpe ti ti on er Hi ck s was m en ta ll y ret ard edbe cau se he ha d a n IQ

sc or e o f 94 , a ps y ch ia tri sttes ti fie d h e h adlo w-av erag e in te ll ig en ce b utwas n ot

m en ta ll y ret ard ed , andhe ob ta in edhi s GED an d e arn eda y ear o f co ll eg e cre di t whi le in carc erat ed ). Add it io na ll y , Turn er h as no t s ho wn a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth athe sat is fie s th e se co ndpro ng of t he m en ta l re ta rd at io n t es t, i .e., def ic it s i n a dapt iv e b eh av io r. Fl or id a d efi ne s “ ad ap ti ve be ha vi or ” as “ th e eff ect iv en es s o r de gr ee wi th whi ch an in di vi du al m eet s the st an da rd s o f pe rs on al in de pe nd en ce an d s oc ia l re sp on si bi li ty
ex pe ct edof h is or h er ag e, cu ltur al gro up , andco m m un it y .” Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.2 03 (b ). See al so Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 08 n.3 , 12 2 S . Ct. at22 45 n.3 (ci ti ng cl in ic al m en ta l re tard at io n d efi ni ti on s re qu iri ng “ si gn ifi can t l im it at io ns in ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on in g i n a t l eas t t wo o f th e fo ll owi ng sk il l ar eas : co m m un ic at io n, s el f-ca re, ho m e li vi ng , so ci al /i nt erp ers on al sk il ls , us e o f co m m un it y res ou rces , se lf- di rect io n, fu nc ti on al acad em ic sk il ls , work , lei su re, h eal th , andsaf ety ”). Turn er re li es onaffi da vi ts fro m fri en ds , fam il y

m em be rs , andacqua in ta nc es th atTurn er, am on g o th er t hi ng s: (1) “ was n’t v ery sm artin cla ss an d h ada hard ti m e k eep in g up” ; (2 ) was “ sl ow t o l earn ”; (3) “ was alway s ea si ly ledby oth ers ”;
14(4 ) “ was a m arg in al stud en t atbe st ”; (5) was “ real ly the wors t s tu de ntin th e

fam il y ” an d “

jus t b arel y

go t b y ” in sch oo l; an d (6 ) “ ha d ave ry di ffi cu ltti m e try in g to un de rs ta ndev ensi m

pl e th in gs .” Howev er, the reco rdals o s ho ws t ha t Tu rn er: (1 ) pl ay edhi gh sch oo l fo otba ll an d g radua te d h ig h s ch oo l; (2) att en de d ju ni or
co ll eg e; (3) joi ne d t he Air Fo rce a ndserve d i n Vi etna m ; (4 ) was “ qu it e sk il le d” at ta il or in g wo rkan d “ ha d a lways be en a gr eatwork er” wh en he was ach il d; (5) ha d a “ st ab le job hi st ory ” as anadul t an d re qu ire d v ery li tt le supe rv is io n a t wo rk ; (6 ) he lp edcare forhi s m en ta ll y di sabl edy ou ng er b ro th er; (7) own edhi s o wn h om e,

“ ke ptitup ve ry

well ,” an d d idrep ai r work o n t he ho m e b y hi m se lf; (8) was
m arri edform or e th ana de cad e; an d (9 ) was “ a te rri fic fat he r” t o h is daug ht ers . In sh ort, Tu rn er’s cl ai m

of a dapt iv e d efi ci ts is be li edby the reco rdas awho le

. Acco rd in gl y , bas edon th e en ti re rec or d, Tu rn er h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth athe is in factm en ta ll y ret ard ed . There fo re, he ha s n otsat is fie d the requi rem en t o f § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(C) th athe m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng th athe is en ti tl edto fil e a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 4 p et it io n a ss ert in g acla im

un de r Atk in s. See Hol la da y , 33 1 F .3dat 1 17 3– 74

. 9
To the extent Turner se eks to raise in a sec ond § 2254 petition a separ ate c laim that the 9 state cour ts erre d in denying him an e videntiary hearing on his Atkins claim, such a claim is not cognizable in a § 2254 petition. See Carroll v. Sec’ y , Dep’ t of Corr., 574 F .3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.) (“[I ]tis ‘beyond debate ’ that a state court’s f ailure to c onduct an e videntiary hearing on a post-conviction motion does not constitute a cognizable claim for ha beas r elief.” ), ce rt. denied, 130 S. Ct . 500 (2009). In any event, Tur

ner ha s not shown the require ments of § 2244(b)( 2)(A) 15II I. CONCLUSI ON

Turn er h as fai le d t o m eetth e § 22 44 (b ) requi rem en ts forfil in g asec on d o r
su cces si ve habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . There fo re, Turne r’s App li cat io n fo r Perm is si on to Fil e a Su cces si ve Habe as Co rp us Pet it io n i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a is de ni ed

. APPLICATI ON DENI ED.

or (B ) ar e met as to such a claim. 16