FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 17, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 31 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 85 7- CV-GAP-KRS ELMER LEON CARROLL, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DOC, FL ATTORNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 17 , 20 09 ) Befo re BLACK, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Elm er Leo n C arro ll , a Flo rid a p ris on er u nd er a s en te nc e o f de ath, ap pe al s

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity as t o t he sec on d cl ai m fro m Carr ol l’s p et it io n: Whe th er Ca rro ll was d en ie d h is rig ht s o f du e pr oc es s an d e qu al pro te ct io n wh enth e st at e co urt fa il edto gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s cl ai m

of m en ta l re tard at io n a ndm en ta l i ll ne ss un de r Atki ns v. Vir gi ni a , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 24 2 (2 00 2) . After r ev ie w andora l ar gu m en t, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. I. FACTS A. Th e Cr ime The fact s o f th e und erl y in g c rime are ga th eredlar ge ly from th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s af firm in g C arro ll ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e, Ca rr ol l v. St at e , 63 6 S o. 2 d 1 31 6 (F la . 19 94 ) ( Ca rr ol l I ), an d t he tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f Carr ol l’s fi rs t 3 .85 0 m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f, Ca rr ol l v. Sta te , 81 5 S o. 2 d 60 1 (F la . 20 02 ) ( Ca rr ol l II ). On Oct ob er 3 0, 1 99 0, atab ou t 6 a.m ., Rob ertRan k wen t t o a wak enhi s te n- y ear- ol d s te pd au gh te r, Ch ris ti ne McGo wan , at the ir h om e in Apo pk a, Fl or id a. Whe n C hr is ti ne di d n otres po ndto hi s ca ll s, Rankwentin to he r be dr oo m an d fo un d h er d ead . Sho rtl y

th erea fte r, Ran k n ot ic edhi s fr on t d oo r was sl ig ht ly aj ar

2an d h is pi ckup , inwhi chhe ha d l eftth e k ey s, was m is si ng . Whe n t he po li ce

arri ve d, the y

de te rm in edCh ris ti ne ha d b eenrap edan d s tra ng le d. A BOLO was is su edforth e m is si ng tru ck , whi chwas awhi te co ns tru ct io n t ru ckbe ari ng th e lo go ATC onth e si de . Sh ortl y th erea fte r, th e truc k was see n p ark edon th e si de of ahi gh way , and Carr ol l was ob se rv edwalk in g abo uton e m il e d own th e ro adfro m th e truc k. Carr ol l was subs eque nt ly sto pp edan d s earc he d, an d t he ke y s t o t he tru ckwere fo un d o n C arro ll . Two witne ss es ha d a ls o o bs erv edCarr ol l driv in g t he tru ck earl ie r th atm orni ng . Blo odwas fo un d o n C arro ll ’s sweats hi rt a ndge ni ta li a, an d se m en , sal iv a, an d p ub ic ha ir r eco ve redfro m th e v ic ti m

were l at er d et erm in edto be co ns is te ntwith t ha t o f Carro ll . On No ve m

be r 26 , 19 90 , Carro ll was i nd ic te d o n o ne co un t o f fi rs t-d eg ree fel on y m ur de r an d o ne co un t o f se xu al ba tt ery on a pe rs on les s tha n t welv e y ears of ag e. B. The C omp et en cy Hea ri ng InAug us t 1 99 1, Ca rro ll ’s tri al co un se l, J am es E. Tay lo r, Jr ., bec am e

“ in crea si ng ly con cern ed ” th atCarr ol l d idno t u nd ers tandth e g rav ity of t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im

an d was in cap ab le of a ss is ti ng inhi s d efen se . Tay lo r fi le d am ot io n fo r a co m pe te nc y he ari ng , inwhi chhe pro ffer edth e o pi ni on s o f two li cen se d 3ps y ch ia tri st s wh o b el ie ve d C arro ll was n otco m pe te ntto st an d t ria l. Jud ge Je ffo rd s D. Mi ll er g ran te d t he m ot io n a ndap po in te d fi ve ex pe rts to ev al ua te Carr ol l t o d et erm in e if

he was c om

pe te ntto st an d t ria l. Purs ua ntto th e co urt’s or de r an d F lo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .21 1, an y expe rt wh o d et erm in ed Carr ol l was no t co m

pe te ntwas a ls o re qu ire d t o i nf orm th e co urt as to “ [t]he na tu re an d e xt en t o f th e m en ta l i ll ne ss or m en ta l re tard at io n s uf fere d b y th e Defen da nt ” an d “ [w]hethe r th e Defen da nt , bec au se of s uc h m en ta l i ll ne ss or m en ta l ret ard at io n, m eet s the cri te riaforin vo lu nt ary ho sp it al iz at io n o r pl acement a s s et fo rth by law.” Inad di ti onto ev al ua ti ng Carr ol l fo r co m pe te nc y , th e ex pe rts were al so ask edto ex am in e Carro ll as t o h is san ity at t he ti m e o f th e al le ge d o ffen se . On No ve m

be r 15 , 19 91 , Ju dg e Mi ll er h eardtes ti m on y fro m Dr. Edward Ben so n, Dr. Ro be rt G. Kirkl an d, Dr. Mi ch ael E. Gutm an , andDr. Jef frey A. Dan zi ge r, al l o f who m

were p sychi atris ts , reg ard in g C arro ll ’s com pe te nc y to st an d tri al . Of th e ex pe rts , on ly D r. Ben so n t es ti fie d h e b el ie ve d C arro ll was n ot 1 co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Dr. Ben so n h adev al ua te d C arro ll twi ce af te r hi s arres t, an d a t b oth t im es Dr. Ben so n b el ie ve d C arro ll was n otco m pe te nt . Dr. Bens on

Dr. L awr ence B. Erlich did not appear at the hea

ringand did not examine Carroll 1 followingthe cour

t’s order in August 1991. Dr. Erlich, a fore nsic psychiatrist, did evaluate Carroll on De cembe r 7, 1990, at whic h time he supplied a report to the court indicating he believed Ca

rroll was c ompetent to stand trial. 4fir stex am in edCarr ol l o n Dec em be r 11 , 19 90 , at wh ic h t im e h e o bs erv edCarr ol l

“ was act iv el y

ps y ch ot ic , sch iz op hr en ic , and. . . he was v ery de lu si on al , and. . . ve ry in co he ren t, v ery withdrawn .” Dr. Ben so n a ga in ex am in edCarr ol l o n Oct ob er 11 , 19 91 , andde te rm in edCarr ol l was st il l “ qu it e p sycho ti c” al th ou gh “he ha d be enpre vi ou sl y

m uc h m or e p sycho ti c la sty ear.” Fol lo win g t he Octo be r 19 91 ev al ua ti on , Dr. Ben so n s ub mitte d awrit te n re po rt t o t he co urt i n wh ic h h e di ag no se d C arro ll with s ch iz op hr en iaan d aparan oi d- type p ers on al ity di so rd er; th e rep ort al so no te d C arro ll ha d abo rd erl in e in te ll ig en ce quo ti en t (I Q), ba se d upo n th e res ul ts of p rev io us ps y ch ol og ic al tes ti ng . Lik e Dr. Ben so n, Dr. Ki rk landtes ti fie d h e h adev al ua te d C arro ll m ul ti pl e ti m es . Dr. Kirk landfir stev al ua te d C arro ll sh ortl y aft er h is arre stan d c on cl ud ed

“ [t]he re was anin di cat io n o f po ss ib le em ot io na l o r m en ta l d is or de r.” Fo ll owi ng th is ev al ua ti on , Dr. Kirk landreco m m en de d C arro ll was n otco m pe te ntto st an d tri al an d c omm it te d h im

to th e in te ns iv e p sychi atric un itat F lo rid a Hos pi ta l u nd er Dr. Kirk land ’s care. Th ere, Ca rro ll un de rwen t p sycho lo gi cal tes ti ng an d “ al th ou gh th ere wer e so m e in di cat or s o f po ss ib le ps y ch os is , th e m ai n t hr eadsee m edhe was m al in ge rin g.” Aftersp en di ng sev eral da y s atFlo rid a Hos pi ta l, Ca rro ll returne d t o th e Oran ge Co un ty Jail wher e Dr. Kirk landco nt in ue d t o m on it orhi m . On Octo be r 10 , 19 91 , Dr. Kirk landag ai n e va lu at edCarr ol l, atwhi chti m e h e 5co nc lu de d t ha t Carro ll was l eg al ly san e an d c om pe te ntto st an d t ria l an d t ha t h e su ffer edfro m

an ti so ci al pe rs on al ity

di so rd er. Ci ti ng lac k o f in ve st ig at iv e rep orts of th e cri m e, ho wev er, Dr. Kirk landde cl in edto gi ve anop in io n a s t o C arro ll ’s m en ta l co nd it io n at the ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Inad di ti on to Dr. Kirk land , Dr. Gutm anals o t es ti fie d h e b el ie ve d C arro ll was co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Dr. Gut m antes ti fie d h e ex am in edCarr ol l o nc e, on Sep te m be r 26 , 19 91 , andrev ie wedm ed ic al in fo rm at io n d at in g b ackto 19 80 , jail cl in ic fil es , andin ve st ig at iv e rep orts de al in g wi th th e al le ge d o ffen se s. Ba se d up on hi s o wn ev al ua ti on an d t he rep orts pro vi de d t o h im , Dr. Gutm anm ad e a di ag no si s “ th at[Carro ll ] ha s a s ub st an ce ab us e p ro bl em with a lc oh ol an d dru gs ; th athe was m al in ge rin g at the ti m e I s aw hi m ; an d t ha t h e h as a lo ng term ch arac te r an d b eh av io r di so rd er wi th an ti so ci al pa ss iv e/ ag gr es si ve an d b or de rli ne pe rs on al ity

tra it s.” In hi s wri tt enrep ort t o t he co urt, Dr. Gu tm anad de d h e be li ev edCarr ol l was “ of

av erag e to hi gh av erag e in te ll ig en ce,” d es pi te a sc or e o f 60 on anIQ tes t p erfo rm edat F lo rid a Hos pi ta l s ho rtl y aft er the arre st , andno te d

“ [t]hi s i nc on si st en cy

wou ldpo in t t o c on sc io us effo rts to lo okret ard edor m en ta ll y

6il l.” Dr. Gutm ande cl in edto off er an op in io n o n C arro ll ’s m en ta l s ta tu s atth e ti m e of th e o ffen se , cit in g l ackof i nf orm at io n p ro vi de d b y

Carr ol l. 2 Dr. Danz ig er was th e la stex pe rt wi tn es s t o t es ti fy at t he co m

pe te nc y he ari ng . Dr. Danzi ge r ev al ua te d C arro ll on Octo be r 14 , 19 91 ; h e al so rev ie wed Carr ol l’s m ed ic al reco rd s, jai l cl in ic fil es , andin ve st ig at iv e rep orts to he lp fo rm ul at e h is op in io ns . On the ba si s o f hi s ev al ua ti on an d t he ot he r in fo rm at io n supp li edto hi m , Dr. Danzi ge r, li ke Dr. Kirk landan d Dr. Gu tm an , tes ti fie d h e be li ev edCarr ol l was co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Dr. Dan zi ge r al so pro vi de d a writ te n re po rt t o t he co urt, i n wh ic h h e d ia gn os edCarr ol l wi th “ Sch iz op hr en ia , Ch ro ni c Und iff

eren ti at edTy

pe ,” al co ho li sm , andm

ul ti pl e dru g abu se ; h e ad de d h e be li ev edCarr ol l was “ ge nu in el y ps y ch ot ic ” th e n ig htof t he off en se , bu t ad m it te d th athe off

eredth e o pi ni on “ witho utm uc h c ert ai nt y

or f or cefu ln es s” an d t ha t

“ [t]hi s i s p ro babl y

on e o f th os e o pi ni on s tha t i s a 5 1% fo r an d 4 9% a ga in st .” His rep ort al so no te d C arro ll ’s ps y ch ol og ic al tes ti ng res ul ts fro m Flo rid a Hos pi ta l; th es e res ul ts in cl ud eda ve rb al IQ sco re o f 58 , whi chth e d oc to r who co nduc te d t he te st in g d et erm in ed“ was no t re li ab le an d u nd eres ti m at ed[Carro ll ’s] in te ll ig en ce be cau se he was n otco op erat in g.” Bas edup on hi s o wn o bs erv at io ns , Dr. Danzi ge r

Carroll cla imed to have no memor y of the sexual assault and murde r of Christine 2 McGowa n. 7de sc rib edCarr ol l’s i nt el le ctas “ ro ug hl y inth e av erag e to be lo w ave rag e ran ge ” an d c on cl ud ed“ [t]he re was no ev id en ce t o s ug ge stth athe ha d m en ta l re tard at io n.” Afte r co ns id eri ng th e te st im on y fro m th e co m pe te nc y he ari ng an d t he rep orts of t he fou r ex pe rts who tes ti fie d, Jud ge Mi ll er fo un d C arro ll was co m pe te ntto pro ceedto tri al an d t o a ss is t h is att orne y inpre pa rat io n o f hi s de fen se an d i ss ue d a n o rd er t o t ha t ef fecton Decem

be r 27 , 19 91 . C. Th e Ju ryTri al The cas e p ro ceed edto tri al on Marc h 1 6, 1 99 2, wi th Ju dg e Bel vi n J . Perry, Jr ., pre si di ng . In ad di ti on to co nt es ti ng gu il t, Ca rro ll als o ra is eda de fen se of in sa ni ty. The St at e an d t he de fen se pre se nt edco nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

fro m fiv e ex pe rt wi tn es se s, i nc lu di ng th e fo urex pe rts who ha d t es ti fie d a t the co m pe te nc y he ari ng , onCarr ol l’s m en ta l s ta tu s atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Dur in g t he Sta te ’s cas e in ch ie f, Dr. Gut m anag ai n t es ti fie d re ga rd in g h is di ag no si s o f Carro ll . He to ldth e jury tha t Ca rro ll ha d “ a lo ng term ch arac te r an d be ha vi ordi so rd er,” wh ic h i nc lu de d a nt is oc ia l p ers on al ity tra it s, p as si ve /a gg res si ve pe rs on al ity

tra it s, b or de rli ne pe rs on al ity tra it s, an d p aran oi a. He ad de d, h owe ve r, th athe be li ev edCarr ol l was m al in ge rin g dur in g h is ex am in at io n and“ act in g i n a frau du le ntway

to pre se nthi m se lf i n asi ck er fa sh io n tha n was actua ll y th e cas e.” Bas edup on hi s ex am in at io n o f Carro ll , Dr. Gutm ande te rm in edCarr ol l was “ in 8th e h ig h a ve rag e ran ge of i nt el li ge nc e,” wh ic h wo ul d h av e p la cedhi s IQ

“ so m ewh ere a ro un d 1 05 to 11 0.” Dr. Gutm anattrib ut edlo wer IQ te stsco res , so m e o f whi chwere i n t he 60 -to -6 9 ra ng e, to m al in ge rin g. He ex pl ai ne d C arro ll was “ cap ab le of d is to rti ng , con sc io us ly dis to rti ng th e an swe rs so th atth e ev al ua to r wou ldco m e up wi th cert ai n a ns wers , wou ldco m e up wi th cert ai n re sp on se s tha t co ul d i nd ic at e th athe ha d alo w IQ, whenintru th th e an swe rs th athe ga ve m e an d th e sa vv y an d a waren es s tha t h e h adwou ldin di cat e a h ig he r IQ.” Co ns is te ntwith th e rep ort h e subm it te d t o t he co urt i n c on jun ct io n wi th th e co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , Dr. Gut m antes ti fie d h e was un ab le to m ak e a d et erm in at io n a s t o wh ethe r Carro ll was leg al ly san e atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se be cau se Carr ol l cl ai m edhe co ul d n ot reca ll an y in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he cri m e. Dr. Ben so n, Dr. Dan zi ge r, an d Dr. El iz ab eth M cMaho n, a c li ni cal ps y ch ol og is t, t es ti fie d fo r th e d efen se . Dr. McMaho n, the on ly exp ertwho di d n ot al so tes ti fy

at t he co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , exa m in edCarr ol l fo r th ree h ou rs on Nov em be r 1, 1 99 0, ju sttwo da y s af te r th e m ur de r. Duri ng th atex am in at io n, Dr. McM ah on ob se rv edth atCarr ol l was “ ex tre m el y di so rg an iz ed ,” “ on ly part ia ll y or ie nt ed ,” an d, i n h er cl in ic al op in io n, “ ex pe rie nc in g b ot h aud it ory an d v is ua l ha ll uc in at io ns .” Dr. McM ah onde sc rib edth e ex am in at io n a s “ di ffi cu lt ” an d co nc lu de d t ha t, b efo re furth er ex am in at io n c ou ldoc cu r, Carr ol l n eed edto be on an 9an ti ps y ch ot ic m ed ic at io n. Sh e al so to ldth e jury she be li ev edCarr ol l was

ps y ch ot ic —an d n otm al in ge rin g— atth e ti m e o f th e in te rv ie w. Dr. Danz ig er t es ti fie d a s t o t he same dia gn os es th athe pro vi de d i n h is writ te n re po rt t o t he co urt fo ll owi ng hi s ex am in at io n o f Carro ll inOcto be r 19 91 : (1 ) sc hi zo ph ren ia , chr on ic di ffer en ti at edtype, (2 ) al co ho li sm , and(3) m ul ti pl e drug ab us e. Dr. Danz ig er ac kn owl ed ge d t he qu es ti on of i ns an ity at t he ti m e o f th e of fen se was “ fran kl y

a ve ry di ffi cu ltcal l” be cau se th ere wer e n o wi tn es se s an d Carr ol l h adno reco ll ect io n o f th e cri m e. Bas edup on witne ss st at em en ts , ho wev er, Dr. Danz ig er was ab le to op in e Carro ll “ was ps y ch ot ic bo th be fo re an d a fte r th e of fen se an d, i n fa ct , was qui te gro ss ly andbi zarr el y ps y ch ot ic .” Becaus e o f th e ps y ch os is , Dr. Danzi ge r to ldth e jury “ it ’s m y op in io n tha t m or e li ke ly than n ot [Carro ll ] was no t re sp on si bl e fo r hi s ac ti on s an d was so ps y ch ot ic he was u nabl e to di st in gu is h ri gh t fr om

wron g.” On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Dr. Dan zi ge r adm it te d h e st il l fe ltun cert ai n abo uthi s o pi ni on , andhe ag reedwith ast at em en t i n h is writ te n rep ort tha t i t was a cl os e cal l— “ 51 % foran d 4 9% a ga in st .” Dr. Ben so n was th e fi na l wi tn es s fo r th e d efen se . As he di d a t the co m pe te nc y he ari ng , Dr. Ben so n e xp la in edhi s o bs erv at io ns fro m hi s two ex am in at io ns of C arro ll . He in fo rm edth e jury tha t, fo ll owi ng th e se co nd ex am in at io n, h e h adde te rm in edth ree d ia gn os es forCarr ol l: (1) “pa ran oi d 10sc hi zo ph ren ia ,” (2 ) a “ hi st ory of p rev io us si gn ifi can t p ol y -s ub st an ce ab us e,” an d (3 ) “bo rd erl in e in te ll ig en t quo ti en t.” With res pe ctto th e th irddi ag no si s, Dr. Ben so n n ot edpre vi ou s p sycho lo gi cal tes ts ha d p la cedCarr ol l’s IQ at79 , whi chwas “ ab so lu te ly bel ow av erag e IQ.” Dr. Ben so n a ls o p ro vi de d an o pi ni on as to Carr ol l’s s an ity

at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , tes ti fy in g, “ al l i n a ll , I th in k i t i s m os t l ik el y

th atth e d efen da ntwas a ct iv el y ps y ch ot ic at t he ti m e o f th e al le ge d cri m e, [an d] th eref

or e, di d n otkn ow wh athe was d oi ng or i ts co ns eque nc es .” On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Dr. Be ns on ackno wled ge d h e was un ab le to form anop in io n a s to whet he r Carro ll co ul d d is ti ng ui sh be twee n ri gh t an d wro ng . The Sta te cal le d Dr. Ki rk landas areb ut ta l wi tn es s. Dr. Kirkl an d t es ti fie d th at , fol lo win g p sycho lo gi cal tes ts an d e xa m in at io ns co nduc te d a t Fl or id a Hos pi ta l in earl y Decem be r 19 90 , Dr. Kirk landco ul d n otm ak e a “ cl ear c utdi ag no si s” of Carr ol l. He n ot ed , ho wev er, the tes ti ng in di cat edele m en ts of d ep res si on , ps y ch os is , andm al in ge rin g. Al th ou gh Dr. Kirk landex pl ai ne d h e in it ia ll y be li ev ed , pri orto Carr ol l’s s ti ntat F lo rid a Hos pi ta l, tha t h e was no t co m pe te ntto st an d t ria l, h e rec on si de redhi s o pi ni on fol lo win g an Oct ob er 1 99 1 e xa m in at io n an d re po rte d h e th ou gh t Ca rro ll was c om pe te nt . Bas edup on th atlat er ex am in at io n, Dr. Ki rk landdi ag no se d C arro ll with a nt is oc ia l p ers on al ity , alc oh ol ab us e, an d asch iz op hr en iares idua l o r ch ro ni c p aran oi d- type o f pe rs on al ity 11di so rd er. Dr. Kirk landals o t es ti fie d h e was in it ia ll y un ab le to pro vi de anop in io n as to Carr ol l’s m en ta l co nd it io n at the ti m e o f th e o ffen se , bu t af te r rev ie win g in ve st ig at iv e rep orts of the cri m e, he be li ev ed“ if M r. Carr ol l, i n fa ct , di d t hi s cri m e th atat t he ti m e, th ou gh he m ay ha ve be enin to xi cat edat t he ti m e, he kn ew wha t h e was do in g, kne w th e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of i t an d kne w th atitwas wro ng .” Fo ll owi ng th ree d ay s o f te st im on y , th e jury con vi ct edCarr ol l o f bo th ch arg es , andth e tr ia l m ov edin to it s p en al ty pha se . Duri ng th is pro ceed in g, the de fen se arg ue d “ [t]he m it ig at or s . . . dea l wi th hi s m en ta l co nd it io n,” bu t d ecl in ed to cal l an y

witne ss es be cau se th e d oc to rs who “ were ab le to ren de r any type o f rel ev an t t es ti m on y

as t o h is ps y ch ia tri c co nd it io n a t ar ou ndth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se ha ve alr eady

tes ti fie d a ndI do n’t wan t t o o pe n up t he do orto an yth in g I’ve di sc us se d wi th hi m .” The d efen se di d, h owe ve r, subm itanin ve st ig at iv e rep ort fro m 19 69 in di cat in g C arro ll ha d b eensex ua ll y m ol es te d a s a c hi ld . At the co nc lu si on of t he pe na lty ph as e, th e jury retu rn eda reco m m en da ti on of de ath fo r th e fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r co nv ic ti on by a vo te of t welv e to zero . Ju dg e Perry fol lo wedth e jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d s en te nc edCarr ol l t o d eath. He fo un d thr ee ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces an d n o s tatu to ry mit ig at in g fa ct or s, b ut

12co nc lu de d a s a n on st atut ory m it ig at in g fa ct orth atCarr ol l s uf fere d fr om

“ so m e po ss ib le m en ta l ab no rm al it ie s an d h as anan ti so ci al pe rs on al ity .” On ap pe al to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, Ca rro ll rai se d fi ve arg um en ts , whi chin cl ud eda cl ai m

th atth e tr ia l co urt “ fai le d t o c on si de r (o r ga ve on ly lit tl e weig htto ) hi gh ly relev an t an d app ro pr ia te m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ” dur in g se nt en ci ng . In s up po rt o f th is cla im , Carro ll no te d t he ex te ns iv e tr ia l t es ti m on y reg ard in g h is m en ta l h eal th . He als o m ai nt ai ne d “ [t]he re was ev id en ce . . . pr es en te d t ha t the de fen da ntha s a b el ow n orm al in te ll ig en ce, wh ic h i s a f act orin m it ig at io n.” The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edCarr ol l’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Ca rr ol l I

, 63 6 S o. 2 d at 1 32 1. Th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Carr ol l’s p et it io n fo r writof c ert io rari on Octo be r 31 , 19 94 . Ca rr ol l v. Fl or id a , 51 3 U.S. 9 73 , 11 5 S . Ct. 4 47 (19 94 ). D. Car ro ll ’s Fir

st 3.8 50Mot io n f

or Pos t-Con vi ct io n Rel ie

f On Fe brua ry

1, 1 99 6, Ca rro ll fil edhi s fi rs t m ot io n t o v acat e jud gm en t an d se nt en ce p ur su an t t o F lo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0. He l at er subm it te d a n a m en de d m ot io n, i n wh ic h h e rai se d 2 4 c la im s. Jud ge Perry agai n pr es id edov er the pro ceed in gs . Fol lo win g a Huf f he ari ng , he c on cl ud edan 3 ev id en ti ary he ari ng was n eces sa ry on fiv e o f th e cl ai m s, i nc lu di ng Carr ol l’s cl ai m s Huff v. State , 622 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1993) . 3 13th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro vi de ba ck gr oundm at eri al s t o

m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts to ass is t the m inde te rm in in g C arro ll ’s in sa ni ty and in to xi cat io n a t the ti m e o f th e o ffen se (Cl ai m VI), th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro vi de ba ck gr ou ndm at eri al s t o m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts to ass is t the m in de te rm in in g C arro ll ’s com pe te nc y (Cl ai m XIX), an d t ha t h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro pe rly inv es ti ga te an d p ro vi de th e m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts with n eces sa ry

in fo rm at io n, the reb y

res ul ti ng inth e lo ss of t he affi rm at iv e d efen se of in sa ni ty (Clai m

XXI). On Au gu st4– 5, 1 99 7, Jud ge Perry con du ct edan ev id en ti ary he ari ng , du rin g wh ic h fi ve ex pe rt wi tn es se s t es ti fie d fo r th e d efen se as to Carr ol l’s m en ta l h eal th . Of th es e ex pe rts , th ree— Dr. McM ah on , Dr. Danzi ge r, an d Dr. Gu tm an—t es ti fie d at the gu il t p ha se of C arro ll ’s tri al . Dr. Barry M. Cro wn, a p sycho lo gi stwho sp eci al iz edincli ni cal an d fo ren si c ps y ch ol og y

an d n eu ro ps y ch ol og y , was the fir sthe al th ex pe rt t o t es ti fy . Dr. Crown ha d e va lu at edCarr ol l twice in19 97 an d h adco nduc te d anu m be r of ne ur op sycho lo gi cal tes ts du rin g t ho se m eet in gs . The t es ts ex am in eddi ffer en t face ts of C arro ll ’s in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g, i nc lu di ng , “ [i]n l ay term s, h ow s m art [Carro ll ] [wa]s, ho w well he de al [t] with d iff ic ul ti es ,” an d “ hi s i nt el le ctua l effi ci en cy .” Bas edup on th es e te st s, Dr. Cro wn t es ti fie d C arro ll ’s ful l s cal e IQ was 81 an d d es cri be d t hi s s co re as be in g “ in th e b or de r-l in e ran ge , whi chis th is 14ne th er n ethe r landbe twee n m en ta ll y ret ard edan d b ei ng lo w ave rag e.” He add ed 4 th e te st s i nd ic at edCarr ol l h ada pr ob le m -s ol vi ng cap aci ty “ of so m eo ne who ’s 11 y ears an d fi ve m on th s o ld ” an d h adanatt en ti on al cap aci ty “ of so m eo ne who was ab ou t ei gh ty y ears ol d s uf feri ng fro m

th e b eg in ni ng of ade ge ne rat iv e p ro ces s.” Dr. Cro wn fu rth er t es ti fie d re ga rd in g C arro ll ’s gen eral ab il ity : [H]is re ad in g abi li ty w as at abo utth e se co ndgra de lev el , sp el li ng at ab ou t the th irdgra de , si m pl e ari th m et ic at abo utth e fi fth gra de lev el . Tha t’s ac tu al ly a rang e in th e .08 pe rcen ti le . Thatm ean s tha t ro ug hl y be tt er tha n 9 9 o utof 1 00 pe op le are ab le to pro ces s thi s b et te r th an he . Andev enat h is be st , 98 ou t o f a hun dr edare ab le to fun ct io n a t a le ve l tha t’s s ig ni fic an tl y

hi gh er tha n h e is . Carr ol l’s p erfo rm an ce o n t he ne ur op sycho lo gi cal tes ts ledDr. Cro wn t o c on cl ud e Carr ol l s uf

fere d fr om

bra in da m ag e th ataffe ct edhi s i nt el le ctua l, co gn it iv e, an d affe ct iv e cap aci ti es . Dr. Cro wn furth er o pi ne d thi s b rai n d am ag e h adm an ife st edearl y in Carr ol l’s l ife , lar ge ly the res ul t o f fet al alc oh ol syndr om e, ph y si cal ab us e, an d subs tanc e ab us e. As s up po rt f orth is co nc lu si on , Dr. Cro wn t es ti fie d C arro ll ’s br ai n c ap aci ty hadno t ch an ge d s in ce h e was a ch il d, n ot in g tha t Ca rro ll ’s 19 97 te st s yield edsi m il ar re su lt s t o t ho se co nduc te d wh enCarr ol l was twel ve an d th irt eeny ears ol d. Sp eci fic al ly, Dr. Cro wn ex pl ai ne d C arro ll ’s chi ldho odtes ts

Dr. Crown a lso placed Car roll’s verba l I Q at 84 and his pe rfor mance I Q at 79. 4 15“pr oduc edth e sa m e num be rs , th e sa m e sc or es th at , th atI [fo un d]; the y were i n t he sa m e, sa m e ref

eren ce g ro up with am in im al varianc e. Andth ere’s a g reatde al of si mil ari ty in t erm s o f th os e id en ti fie d fu nc ti on s.” He n ot edCarr ol l p ro du ceda fu ll -s cal e IQ o f 80 on th e Wesch le r In te ll ig en ce Sc al e fo r Ch il dr eninbo th 19 68 an d 1 96 9, an d t es ti fie d “ it ’s hi gh ly unl ik el y th atso m eo ne co ul d fake th atnu m be r on a de li be rat e b as is be gi nn in g wh enth ey were 1 2 years o ld .” Dr. Cro wn d id m en ti on a 19 90 tes t h ady ie ld eda ve rb al IQ of 5 8 b utex pl ai ne d t he sco re was a lo wer o ut li er b ecau se Carr ol l was ps y ch ot ic at t he ti m e o f th e te st . Dr. Cro wn co nc lu de d h is tes ti m on y on di rectex am in at io n b y st at in g i f he ha d b eengi ve n t he op po rtu ni ty to co nduc t the tes ti ng in19 92 an d t o t es ti fy at Carr ol l’s tria l, h e wou ldhave tes ti fie d C arro ll m etth e requi rem en ts fortwo st atut ory m it ig at in g fa ct or s— sp eci fic al ly, Carr ol l’s capa ci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al ity

of h is co nduc t an d c on fo rm hi s co nduc t t o t he requi rem en ts of t he law was subs tant ia ll y

im pa ire d, an d C arro ll co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r un de r th e in flu en ce of ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. Lik e Dr. Cro wn, Dr. J ethr o W. Toom er, a fo ren si c p sycho lo gi st , was a n ew m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt f

orth e d efen se . Dr. Toom er s ta te d h e co nduc te d a ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on of C arro ll on Jan ua ry 25 , 19 96 , at the reque stof Carr ol l’s co un se l. Aft er ex am in in g C arro ll an d re vi ewin g h is m ed ic al reco rd s, 16Dr. Too m er b el ie ve d C arro ll “pr es en t[e d] sym pt om at ol og y

th atr[an ] th e en ti re ga m utof s ev eral pe rs on al ity

di so rd ers , all th e way

th ro ug h t o am ajor

m en ta l di so rd er. At t im es he m an ife st [ed ] sym pt om al og y

in di cat iv e o f ps y ch os is . . . an d atot he r ti m es he m an ife st [ed ] sym pt om al og y

refl ect in g asev ere p ers on al ity di so rd er.” Dr. Too m er fu rth er t es ti fie d C arro ll ’s m en ta l h is to ry was i nc on si st en t with aco nc lu si on th athe was m al in ge rin g a t the ti m e o f tr ia l. Bas edup on th es e co nc lu si on s, h e st at edth atha d h e b eencal le d dur in g C arro ll ’s pen al ty pha se , he wou ldha ve tes ti fie d C arro ll was u nabl e to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al ity of h is co nduc t an d s uf

fere d fr om

sev ere m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. Dr. McM ah on an d Dr. Dan zi ge r ag ai n t es ti fie d fo r th e d efen se an d rei te rat edth ei r in it ia l co nc lu si on s as to Carr ol l’s m en ta l s ta tu s an d c om pe te nc y . Lik e Dr. Cro wn an d Dr. To om er, the y bo thtes ti fie d t ha t i f th ey wou ldha ve be en cal le d dur in g the pe na lty

ph as e o f Carro ll ’s tri al pro ceed in gs , th ey wou ldha ve op in edth atCarr ol l’s capa ci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al ity of h is co nduc t an d co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o the requi rem en ts of t he law was subs tant ia ll y im pa ire d, an d t ha t h e co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r un de r th e in flu en ce o f ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. Dr. Gut m anwas the fin al m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt t o t es ti fy at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Carr ol l’s 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Dr. Gu tm anha d t es ti fie d fo r th e St at e attri al , 17bu t h adch an ge d h is di ag no si s af te r rev ie win g C arro ll ’s ent ire m ed ic al hi st ory an d ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on s. Aft er i ni ti al ly con cl ud in g C arro ll ha d p sycho se xu al an d m ix edpe rs on al ity

di so rd ers an d was m al in ge rin g dur in g h is Sep te m be r 19 91 ev al ua ti on , Dr. Gutm anam en de d h is di ag no si s t o i nc lu de bra in da m ag e: “ My cu rren t d ia gn os is wou ldbe m en ta l d is or de r with m oo d, m em ory , per so na li ty ch an ge an d c og ni ti ve de cl in e as so ci at edwith a lc oh ol de te rio rat io n a ndin flu en ce on th e b rai n.” Dr. Gutm anex pl ai ne d t he po rti on s o f Carro ll ’s hi st ory th atledto 5 hi s n ew di ag no si s, i nc lu di ng sch oo l re co rd s tha t i nd ic at edCarr ol l’s IQ was “ in th e 75 to 85 ran ge .” Dr. Gut m anfurth er t es ti fie d t ha t h adhe be encal le d dur in g Carr ol l’s p en al ty pha se , he wo ul d h av e g iv enanop in io n tha t Ca rro ll was u nabl e to ap pr eci at e th e cri min al ity of h is co nduc t an d s uf

fere d fr om

sev ere m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. On Oct ob er 2 0, 1 99 8, J ud ge Perry ent eredanord er d en y in g a ll of C arro ll ’s cl ai m s fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt l at er af firm edth e tri al co urt’s o rd er an d d en ie d C arro ll ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . Ca rr ol l II , 81 5 S o. 2 d a t 6 07 . This new diagnosis, however , did not alter Dr. Gutman’s initial diagnose s of 5 psychosexual and mix ed per sonality disorders a

nd malinge ring , which he still maintained at the time of the post-convic tion evidentiary hearing. T hose traits we re still present, with Carr oll’s brain damag e explaining why he possessed the m.

18E. Carro ll ’s Su cces si ve 3 .85 0 Mo ti on

On Ap ril 22 , 20 03 , Carro ll fil eda su cces si ve 3.8 50 m ot io n, ra is in g t wo n ew cl ai m s b as edup on th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s i n Rin g v . Ari zo na , 53 6 U.S. 58 4, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 42 8 (2 00 2) , and Atki ns v. Vir gi ni a , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 24 2 (2 00 2) . W ith re sp ectto hi s Atki ns cla im , Carro ll arg ue d h e was ex em ptfro m ex ecu ti on un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t b ecau se he was “ bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard edan d/ orsu ffer in g fr om su chsev ere b rai n d am ag e an d m en ta l l im it at io ns th atde ath c ou ldne ve r be anap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t.” Ju dg e Perry , who ha d p res id edov er Ca rro ll ’s tri al in19 92 an d h is in it ia l po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs in19 97 , on ce ag ai n was ass ig ne d t he cas e an d, o n Ju ne 12 , 20 03 , hel d a Huf f he ari ng on Carr ol l’s n ew cl ai m s. At t ha t h eari ng , Carr ol l’s co ll at eral co un se l m ai nt ai ne d C arro ll ha d m ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng of m en ta l re tard at io n t o warran t anev id en ti ary he ari ng un de r Atki ns : “ It’s o ur co nt en ti on he ha s s ub st an ti al li m it at io n o f pr es en t fu nc ti on in g. IQ ran ge fro m 75 to 81 . Pos tc on vi ct io n a ndtri al reco rdde m on st rat e h e al so su ffer s fr om othe r m en ta l i ll ne ss , com

pa rat iv e rea so ni ng .” As s up po rt f orth is arg um en t, co ll at eral co un se l re li edso le ly on e xi st in g e vi de nc e in th e rec or d a nddi d n otpro fferan y

19ad di ti on al ev id en ce re gard in g C arro ll ’s m en ta l re tard at io n. Spe ci fic al ly, 6 co ll at eral co un se l ci te d Dr. Cr own ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g C arro ll ’s IQ and in te ll ectua l ab il ity

fro m th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Carr ol l’s i ni ti al 3.8 50 m ot io n. He al so po in te d t o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d p ert ai ni ng to Carr ol l’s re ad in g, s pe ll in g, an d a rithm et ic ab il it ie s as well as h is po orpe rfo rm an ce i n s ch oo l, co nt en di ng Carr ol l’s l earn in g d is ab il it ie s ev id en ceda si gn ifi can t l im it at io n i n a dapt iv e func ti on in g. Co ll at eral co un se l fu rth er arg ue d C arro ll ha d e xh ib it edpro bl em s with s el f-d ire ct io n andsel f-ca re dur in g h is li fe. He co nc lu de d b y no ti ng Carr ol l’s de fic it s i n a dapt iv e b eh av io r m an ife st edby age ei gh te en . On J anua ry

12 , 20 04 , th e tr ia l co urt s umm ari ly den ie d C arro ll ’s su cces si ve 3.8 50 m ot io n. With res pe ctto Carr ol l’s Atki ns cla im , Ju dg e Perry co ns id eredth e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, the pri orev id en ti ary he ari ng onCarr ol l’s fi rs t 3 .85 0 m ot io n, an d t he Huf

f he ari ng onhi s s uc ces si ve m ot io n— al l p ro ceed in gs ov er whi chJu dg e Perry

ha d p res id ed

—an d c on cl ud ed“ Defen dantdo es no t m eetth e

In his briefs to this Court, Carroll states, without citation to the recor d, that he prof fer ed 6 a re cent I Q score of 75 to the state c ourt. We have f ound nothing in the r ecor d supporting this statement. At the Huff hearing, Ca rroll’s counse l did maintain Carroll had posted an I Q score of 75, but counsel made this statement in his reply to the State’s argument and did not provide a ny further information re g ardingthis score, includingwhether it was the re sult of rec ent testing . L ikewise, Car

roll’s succe ssive 3.850 motion does state he “ha s been me asure d with a full scale I Q at 75.” T his number, howeve r, appe ars to be a n aver ag e of se vera l previous I Q score s; the succe ssive 3.850 motion does not mention any rec ent testing . Indeed, at oral argument, Carroll’s counsel c oncede d no new e vidence was prof fer ed to the state c ourt. 20de fin it io n o f m en ta ll y ret ard edas s etforth in Atki ns be cau se hi s IQ s co re i s an d was ov er 7 5.” He als o fo un d t he reco rdsh owe d n o s ig ni fic an t l im it at io n i n Carr ol l’s ad ap ti ve sk il ls . Accor di ng ly, Ju dg e Perry de ni edCarr ol l’s m en ta l ret ard at io n c la im . Furt he rm or e, he de cl in edto ap pl y Atki ns to th e m en ta ll y il l, no ti ng “ th e ei gh th am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n p ro hi bi ts th e ex ecu ti on of i ns an e p ris on ers an d t he re are alr eady nu m ero us saf

eg uard s i n p la ce fo r th e p ro te ct io n o f th e tr ul y in sa ne .” On M ay

12 , 20 05 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edwitho utanop in io n. Ca rr ol l v. Sta te , 90 4 S o. 2 d 4 30 (Fl a. 20 05 ) ( Ca rr ol l II

I ). F. Carro ll ’s § 2 25 4 Pet it io n On J un e 8 , 20 05 , Carro ll fil eda pe ti ti on for a writof h ab eas co rp us pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Flo rid a, rai si ng sev encla im s fo r rel ie f. W itho utco nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C arro ll ’s pet it io n. Th e b ul k o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s or de r ad dr es se d C arro ll ’s Atki ns cla im . Reg ard in g C arro ll ’s m en ta l capa ci ty, th e di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d “ th e rec or d s up po rts th e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Pet it io ne r’s IQ is ov er 7 5, an d P et it io ne r ha s fa il edto reb utth is fin di ng by clear an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.” In te rp ret in g Atki ns to ap pl y on ly to p ers on s wh o po ss es s IQs of 7 5 o r lo wer, th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s 21de ci si on th atCarr ol l was no t en ti tl edto rel ie f was no t “ co nt rary to” or “ an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law an d “ was no t un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rti ng it s co nc lu si on .” Furth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto ex te nd Atki ns to th e m en ta ll y il l an d th us de ni edCarr ol l’s equa l p ro te ct io n c la im as we ll . Carro ll fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al with t hi s C ou rt, andth e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d aCOA as t o C arro ll ’s Atki ns cl ai m . This Co urt l at er d en ie d C arro ll ’s reque stto ex pa ndth e COA to co ve r ad di ti on al is su es . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Fo ll owi ng a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on , th is Co urt re vi ews qu es ti on s o f la w andm ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact de no vo an d fi nd in gs of f act fo r cl ear e rro r. Nylan d v . Moo re , 21 6 F .3d12 64 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m). Carr ol l fi le d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on aft er Ap ril 24 , 19 96 , andthus th is cas e is go ve rn edby the Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (AEDPA), whi ch“ es tabl is he s a h ig hl y de fere nt ia l s tand ardforrev ie win g s ta te co urt ju dg m en ts .” Parker v. Se c’y f or Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 33 1 F .3d76 4, 7 68 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Und er AEDPA, a fed eral co urt s ha ll no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f on cla im s tha t were p rev io us ly adjud ic at edinst at e co urt u nl es s the st at e co urt’s d eci si on was 22(1 ) “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh ed Fed eral law as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) . . . was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce pr es en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . III. DISC USSION Carr ol l es se nt ia ll y

ass ert s two Atki ns cla im s i n h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Fi rs t, h e m ai nt ai ns th athe is “ func ti on al ly m en ta ll y ret ard ed ,” a s ta tu s tha t ex em pt s h im fro m ex ecu ti on un de r Atki ns , andth atth e st at e co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng as t o t hi s i ss ue vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts . Seco nd , he co nt en ds th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on no t t o e xt en d Atki ns to th e m en ta ll y il l vi ol at edhi s equa l p ro te ct io n ri gh ts be cau se th e m en ta ll y il l ar e si m il arl y

si tu at ed to th e m en ta ll y

ret ard edan d t he rat io na le be hi nd Atki ns ap pl ie s equa ll y to pe rs on s with m en ta l i ll ne ss es . A. Due Pro ces s—

Men ta l Retarda ti on Carr ol l ar gu es hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d wh enth e st at e co urt fai le d t o g ran t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s cl ai m of m en ta l re tard at io n u nd er Atki ns . Carro ll ass ert s the reco rd s o n wh ic h t he st at e tr ia l co urt re li edto de te rm in e he di d n otm eetth e d efi ni ti onof m en ta l re tard at io n und er Atki ns were i nc om pl et e, in co ns is te nt , andan al yzedou ts id e th e co nt ex t o f a m en ta l re tard at io n h eari ng . He 23furth er co nt en ds th e rec or d s ug ge st s h is IQ m ay be les s tha n 7 5, an d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng is ne ces sary

to co nc lu si ve ly establ is h h is lev el of i nt el le ctua l func ti on in g an d a dapt iv e b eh av io r. Carr ol l co nf

la te s a n um

be r of is su es inhi s due pro ces s ar gu m en t, an d we be li ev e se pa rat in g t he se is su es pro vi de s cl ari ty in d et erm in in g b ot h t he ap pr op ria te le ga l an al y si s an d t he ap pr op ria te rem edy . W e th us co ns tru e Carro ll ’s bri efs an d or al arg um en t as advo cat in g t hr ee s ep arat e b as es of r el ie f: ( 1) Carr ol l i s en ti tl edto habe as co rp us rel ie f be cau se th e st at e co urt v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by fai li ng to gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s Atki ns cla im , (2) Carr ol l i s en ti tl edto habe as co rp us rel ie f be cau se he is m en ta ll y ret ard edan d thu s ex em

ptfro m ex ecu ti on un de r Atki ns , and(3) Carr ol l i s en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s Atki ns cla im , andwe sh ou ldrem an d t hi s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on du cton e. W e co ns id er the se is su es inturn . 1. Whethe r the stat e tr ia l co ur t vi ol at ed Ca rr ol l’s du e p ro ces s r ight s w he n it decl in ed

to gr an t h im a n e vi de nt ia ryhe ar in g o n h is cla im o f men ta l retarda ti on . Carr ol l co nt en ds th e st at e tr ia l co urt v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts when it su m m ari ly den ie d h is Atki ns cla im of m en ta l re tard at io n wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . He m ai nt ai ns Flo rid a la w requi redth e st at e co urt t o c on du ctan ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s s uc ces si ve po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n b ecau se th e cl ai m 24was leg al ly suf fic ie ntun de r Atki ns an d n otco nc lu si ve ly refut edby the reco rd . Carr ol l al so in si nu at es fed eral law ( i.e. , Atki ns it se lf) , inad di ti on to Flo rid a la w, m an da te d t ha t the st at e co urt co nduc t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng inth is cas e. Thi s C ou rt h as rep eat ed ly hel d d efec ts inst at e co ll at eral pro ceed in gs do no t pr ov id e a b as is forhabe as rel ie f. Se e, e.g ., And er so n v . Sec ’y f

or Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 46 2 F .3d13 19 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m); Qui nc e v. Cr os by , 36 0 F .3d 12 59 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); Sp ra dl ey v. Dugg er , 82 5 F .2d15 66 , 15 68 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (p er cu ria m). The re as on in g b eh in d t hi s wel l-e st ab li sh edpri nc ip le is st rai gh tfo rward : a c ha ll en ge to a st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g d oe s n otun de rm in e th e le ga li ty of th e d et en ti on or i m pr is on m en t— i.e. , th e co nv ic ti on it se lf— an d t hu s habe as rel ie f is no t an ap pr op ria te rem edy . Se e Qui nc e , 36 0 F .3dat 1 26 1– 62 ; Sp ra dl ey , 82 5 F .2dat 1 56 8. Mo reo ve r, su chch al le ng es oft enin vo lv e cl ai m s un de r st at e la w—fo r ex am pl e, Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 a nd 3.8 51 , whi chgo ve rnth e av ai labi li ty of, an d p ro cedur es att en dantto , po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs inFlo rid a—a nd“ [a] st at e’s in te rp ret at io n o f it s o wn l aws orrul es pro vi de s n o b as is for fed eral habe as co rp us rel ie f, si nc e n o que st io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al na tu re i s i nv ol ve d.” Se e McCu ll ou gh v. Si ng le ta ry , 96 7 F .2d53 0, 53 5 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 2) .

25Bec au se of t hi s b ar t o re li ef, we h av e st at editis “be y on d d eb at e” tha t a s ta te

co urt’s fa il ur e to co nduc t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on a po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n d oe s no t co ns ti tu te a co gn iz ab le cla im forhabe as rel ie f. Se e Ander so n , 46 2 F .3dat 13 30 . In Sp ra dl ey , we con si de reda habe as pe ti ti on inwhi cha Fl or id a in m at e cl ai m ed“ th e st at e tr ia l co urt wh ic h h eardan d d en ie d h is 3.8 50 m ot io n v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts be cau se itfai le d t o c on du ctanev id en ti ary he ari ng an d d idno t at ta chto it s o pi ni on de nyin g re li ef tho se po rti on s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h i t re li ed .” 82 5 F .2d at15 67 . W e reject edth is cla im , ho ld in g ast at e co urt’s fa il ur e to co nduc t anev id en ti ary he ari ng can no t fo rm th e b as is forhabe as rel ie f be cau se su chan erro r do es no t “ un de rm in e[] th e v al id ity of p et it io ne r’s co nv ic ti on ” an d i s

“un rel at edto th e cau se of p et it io ne r’s de te nt io n.” Id. at 1 56 8. We lat er re affi rm ed th is ge ne ral pri nc ip le in Qui nc e , no ti ng “ anall eg edde fectina co ll at eral pr oc eed in g d oe s n otst at e a b as is forhabe as rel ie f.” 3 60 F.3dat 1 26 2. Und er thi s C ou rt’s p rece de nt , Carro ll ’s cla im th atth e st at e co urt v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by fail in g t o c on du ctanev id en ti ary he ari ng un de r Fl or id a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 and3.8 51 on hi s p os t-c on vi ct io n Atki ns cla im do es no t s ta te a cl ai m

onwhi chth is Co urt m ay granthabe as rel ie f. Se e S pr adle y , 82 5 F.2 d a t 1 56 8. Ca rro ll do es no t ad dr es s thi s b ar t o re li ef. Acco rd in gl y , we den y

26Carr ol l’s due pro ces s cl ai m forhabe as rel ie f to th e ex te ntitres ts onth e st at e co urt’s fa il ur e to gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng un de r Fl or id a la w. Carr ol l h as als o s ug ge st edth e Atki ns de ci si on it se lf c om pe ls st at e co urts to co nduc t ev id en ti ary he ari ng s o n c la im s o f m en ta l re tard at io n. Atki ns , ho wev er, si m pl y set s fo rth th e co ns ti tu ti on al pro hi bi ti on onth e ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard edin di vi du al s, an d i t s pe ci fic al ly “ le av e[s ] to th e St at es th e ta skof de ve lo pi ng ap pr op ria te way s t o e nf or ce the co ns ti tu ti on al res tri ct io n,” Atki ns , 53 6 U.S. at 3 17 , 12 2 S . Ct. at22 50 , whi chpre su m ab ly inc lu de s the av ai labi li ty of, an d pr oc edur es att en da ntto , evi de nt iary he ari ng s b efo re s ta te tri al co urts , se e Fla . R. Cri m P. 3.2 03 (e), 3 .85 0( d) , 3.8 51 (f)(5 )(A)-( B). Carro ll po in ts to no lan gu ag e in Atki ns , or any oth er d eci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt, t o s up po rt h is arg um en t tha t fe de ra l lawrequi res st at e co urts to co nduc t ev id en ti ary he ari ng s o n ev ery cl ai m

of m en ta l re tard at io n— es pe ci al ly in ca se s, s uc h a s C arro ll ’s, inwhi ch a p et it io ne r ha s p res en te d e vi de nc e reg ard in g h is m en ta l h eal th inth ree p rio r pr oc eed in gs . Fin di ng no cas e to supp ort Ca rro ll ’s arg um en t o ur se lv es , we co nc lu de hi s due pro ces s cl ai m reg ard in g t he fai lu re o f th e st at e co urt t o c on du ct anev id en ti ary he ari ng do es no t s ta te a co gn iz ab le cla im forhabe as rel ie f. 7 Although not a

basis for our

holding on this issue, we a g ain note Carr oll did not proffer 7 any new e videncereg ardinghis mental retar dation claim bef ore the state cour

t at the Huff hearing. Rather, the e vidence he prof fer ed wa s limi ted to testimony and af fidavits from the 272. Whethe r C ar ro ll is exemp t f

ro m exec ut io n u nd

er Atk in s be ca us e h e is mental lyret arde d. Carr ol l m ai nt ai ns he is m en ta ll y ret ard edan d t hu s ex em

ptfro m ex ecu ti on un de r Atki ns . As ev id en ce o f hi s m en ta l re tard at io n, Ca rro ll no te s h e h as sco red le ss th an75 on sev eral IQ tes ts ; h is read in g abi li ty is atth e se co nd -g rad e le ve l, h is sp el li ng ab il ity

is at t he th ird -g rad e le ve l, an d h is ari th m et ic ab il ity is at t he fif

th gr ad e le ve l; an d h e ex hi bi te d p oo r ad ap ti ve be ha vi orinhi s ch il dh oo d and ad ol es cen ce. In Atki ns , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t he ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard ed in di vi du al s v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t crue l an d un us ua l p un is hm en ts . 53 6 U.S. at32 1, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 52 . Alth ou gh th e Co urt le ft “ to th e St at es th e ta skof d ev el op in g app ro pr ia te way s t o e nf or ce the co ns ti tu ti on al res tri ct io n,” id. at31 7, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 50 , itrep ro du cedde fin it io ns of m en ta l re tard at io n fo rm

ul at edby the Am eri canAss oc ia ti on on Men ta l Ret ard at io n andAm eri canPsychi atric Ass oc ia ti on : The Am eri canAss oc ia ti on on Men ta l Re tard at io n (AAM R) d efi ne s m en ta l re tard at io n a s fo ll ows : “ Men ta l re tard at io n re fers to subs tant ia l l im it at io ns inpre se ntfun ct io ni ng . It i s ch arac te riz edby 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

with re la te d l im it at io ns intwo or m or e o f th e fo ll owi ng ap pl ic ab le ad ap ti ve sk il l ar eas : co m m un ic at io n, s el f-ca re, h om e evidentiar y hearing on his initial 3.850 motion. 28li vi ng , so ci al sk il ls , comm un ity us e, se lf- di rect io n, h eal th an d s afety , func ti on al acad em ic s, l ei su re, an d wo rk . Men ta l re tard at io n m an ife st s b efo re ag e 1 8.” The Am eri canPsychi atric Ass oc ia ti on ’s def in it io n i s s im il ar: “ The es se nt ia l fe atur e o f Men ta l Re tard at io n i s s ig ni fic an tl y suba ve rag e ge ne ral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g (C rit eri on A) th atis acco m pa ni edby si gn ifi can t l im it at io ns inad ap ti ve fun ct io ni ng inat l eas t two 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, h om e li vi ng , so ci al /i nt erp ers on al sk il ls , us e o f co m m un ity res ou rces , sel f-d ire ct io n, func ti on al acad em ic sk il ls , work , lei su re, h eal th , andsaf ety (Cri te rio n B). The on se t m

us t o ccu r be fo re ag e 1 8 years ( Cri te rio n C ).” Id. at30 8 n .3, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 45 n.3 (in te rn al cit at io ns an d e m ph as is om it te d) . The Co urt al so no te d t ha t “ ‘[m ]ild ’ m en ta l re tard at io n i s ty pi cal ly use d t o d es cri be pe op le with a n IQ l ev el of 5 0– 55 to ap pr ox im at el y 70 ,” id. , andth atanIQ sco re be twee n 7 0 a nd75 “ is typic al ly con si de redth e cu to ff IQ s co re fo r th e in te ll ectua l func ti on pro ng of t he m en ta l re tard at io n d efi ni ti on ,” id. at30 9 n .5, 1 22 S. Ct. at 22 45 n.5 . Whe n Atki ns was d eci de d i n 2 00 2, the st at e o f Fl or id a al read y ha d alaw pr oh ib it in g t he ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard edin di vi du al s. Se e Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .13 7. Th atlaw d efi ne s “ m en ta l re tard at io n” as “ si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e ge ne ral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g e xi st in g c on cu rren tl y with d efi ci ts inad ap ti ve be ha vi oran d m an ife st eddu rin g t he pe rio d fr om co nc ep ti on to ag e 1 8.” The st atut e fu rth er 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”

29as “pe rfo rm an ce tha t i s two o r m or e st an da rdde vi at io ns fro m th e m eansco re o n a st an da rd iz edin te ll ig en ce t es t.” Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as in te rp ret edth is de fin it io n a s re qu iri ng a pe ti ti on er t o e st ab li sh he ha s an IQ of 7 0 o r be lo w. Se e Jo nes v. Sta te , 96 6 S o. 2 d 3 19 , 32 9 (F la . 20 07 ). Sect io n 9 21 .13 7, h owe ve r, ap pl ie s o nl y

to pe rs on s s en te nc edto de ath a fte r th e eff ect iv e d at e o f th e st atut e in 20 01 . Fla. St at . § 9 21 .13 7( 8) . Thu s, as th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , § 9 21 .13 7 i s in ap pl ic ab le to Carr ol l, an d “ itis on ly w ithi n t he co nt ex t o f Atki ns ’ m en ta l ret ard at io n d efi ni ti on th atth is Co urt ev al ua te s Pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m .” The st at e tr ia l co urt m ad e fac tu al de te rm in at io ns th atCarr ol l i s n otm en ta ll y ret ard edan d t ha t h e p os se ss es anIQ of abo ve 75 . In ch al le ng in g the se de te rm in at io ns , Carro ll po in ts to ev id en ce i n t he reco rdin di cat in g h e h as sco red be lo w 75 on pre vi ou s IQ t es ts . Spe ci fic al ly, he no te s the tri al tes ti m on y of Dr. Mi ch ael Gut m an , who tes ti fie d “ps y ch ol og ic al tes ts sh owe d [C arro ll ] to ha ve an IQ of si xt y or i n t he si xt y

to si xty -n in e ran ge .” Carr ol l al so st at es he sco reda 58 on anIQ tes t s ho rtl y

aft er b ei ng arre st ed . W ith re sp ectto hi s ad ap ti ve be ha vi or , Carr ol l em

ph as iz es hi s p oo r co gn it iv e ab il it ie s, ci ti ng th e te st im on y of Dr. B arry Cro wn an d Dr. El iz ab eth M cMa ho n a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s i ni ti al po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n, as well as a do le sc en t b eh av io ral pro bl em s, ci ti ng anaffi da vi t of Nell y T. Sm ith, h is si st er. 30Thi s ev id en ce fa il s t o u nd erm in e th e st at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns or

es tabl is h t ho se de te rm in at io ns were u nr eas on ab le inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce b efo re th e st at e tr ia l co urt. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). The re co rdinth is cas e is rep le te with e vi de nc e—p res en te d at thr ee s ep arat e p ro ceed in gs , two of wh ic h wer e b efo re th e sa m e st at e tr ia l ju dg e—s up po rti ng th e st at e co urt’s fi nd in gs . ( Se e R2 -2 0, Ex h. Vol . 4 at51 1– 12 (Dr. Gut m an ’s tes ti m on y th atCarr ol l was “ in th e h ig h a ve rag e 8 ran ge of i nt el li ge nc e” an d h is IQ was b etween10 5 a nd11 0) ; R2 -2 0 Ex h. Vo l. 4 at 51 2 (I Q tes ts on whi chCarr ol l h adsco redinth e h ig h 7 0s an d l ow 8 0s ); R 2- 20 , Exh . Vol . 6 at75 8 (s ch oo l IQ t es t o f 79 ); R 2- 20 , Exh . Vol . 10 at 1 05 9 (Dr. Gut m an ’s rep ort i nd ic at in g C arro ll was “ of av erag e to hi gh av erag e in te ll ig en ce”) ; R2 -2 0, Ex h. Vo l. 1 0 a t 1 06 4 (Dr . Ben so n’s re po rt i nd ic at in g C arro ll ha d abo rd erl in e IQ); R2 -2 0, Ex h. Vo l. 1 0 a t 1 07 0 (Dr . Danz ig er’s rep ort de sc rib in g C arro ll ’s in te ll ectas “ ro ug hl y inth e av erag e to be lo w ave rag e ran ge ”); R2 -2 0, Ex h. PC Vol . 2 at22 9 (Dr . Cro wn’s t es ti m on y th atCarr ol l’s IQ was 81 , whi chwas i n a“ ne th er n ethe r la ndbe twee n m en ta ll y ret ard edan d b ei ng lo w av erag e”); R2 -2 0, Ex h. PC Vol . 2 at22 9 (t es ts sco res sh owi ng a ve rb al IQ of 8 4 The state c ourt filings w ere filed with the district court a s an exhibitto R2-20 and 8 consist of three sets of volumes. One se t of volumes contains the re cord f rom Carroll’s tria l and direc t appea l; these volumes aredesignated a s “Vol.” Another set of volumes contains the re cord reg ardingCarroll’s fir st 3.850 moti on for post-c onviction relief; these volumes are designated a s “PC Vol.” The f

inal set of volumes conta ins the rec ord re g ardingCarroll’s succ essive 3.850 motion for post-conviction re lief; these volumes a re de signated as “ PC2 Vol.” 31an d ape rfo rm an ce IQ o f 79 ); R 2- 20 , Exh . PC Vol . 2 at23 7– 38 (sc ho ol IQ tes ts of

80 ); R 2- 20 , Exh . PC Vol . 2 at39 2 (s ch oo l re co rd s i nd ic at in g C arro ll ’s IQ ran ge d fro m 80 to inth e 7 5- to -8 5 ra ng e).) In ad di ti on to th e fac ts inth e rec or d, Ca rro ll ’s co un se l ad m it te d a t the st at e Huf f he ari ng th atCarr ol l h adan“ IQ ran ge fro m 75 to 81 .” ( Se e R2 -2 0, Ex h. PC 2 Vo l. 1 at 2 3.) 9 Mo reo ve r, th e st at e co urt co ns id eredth e sa m e ev id en ce Carro ll ha s pr es en te d i n h is bri efs to th is Co urt an d fo un d i t u np ers ua si ve . Ind eed , Carro ll do es no t p ro vi de th e fu ll co nt ex t o f th e te st im on y reg ard in g h is sub- 75 IQ sco res : th e sa m e ex pe rt, Dr. Gu tm an , who tes ti fie d a t tria l as to tes ts sh owi ng anIQ inth e 60 -to -6 9 ra ng e al so est im at edCarr ol l’s IQ t o b e b etween10 5 a nd11 0, an d Carr ol l’s o wn ex pe rt a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s i ni ti al 3.8 50 m ot io n m ai nt ai ne d C arro ll ’s pre vi ou s IQ s co re o f 58 was l ik el y th e res ul t o f ps y ch os is . Fi na ll y , Carro ll ha s n ev er at te m pt edto pro fferan y

ad di ti on al ev id en ce t o an y co urt—whe th er i t b e th e st at e co urts , th e d is tri ctco urt, o r th is Co urt—th at wou ldun de rm in e th e ex haus ti ve ev id en ce al read y inth e rec or d i nd ic at in g h e is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard ed . Qui te si m

pl y , Carro ll ha s h adnu m ero us op po rtu ni ti es ( i.e. , hi s co m pe te nc y he ari ng , hi s tria l, an d t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s i ni ti al 3.8 50 Counsel’s argument at the Huff hearing, how ever , was c onsistent with the claim in 9 Carroll’s succ essive 3.850 motion—that is, Carroll is borderlinementally reta rded. 32m ot io n) du rin g t he pa steig ht eeny ears to pre se ntev id en ce s up po rti ng a fi nd in g o f

m en ta l re tard at io n. The s tate tri al co urt ju dg e, who pre si de d o ve r bo th Carr ol l’s 1 0 tri al an d e vi de nt iary

he ari ng on hi s i ni ti al 3.8 50 m ot io n a ndwas i nt im at el y aware of th e ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he se pro ceed in gs , fou ndhe ha d fa il edto do so , an d t he reco rdsupp orts th is fin di ng . Ourrev ie w do es no t s to p h ere, h owe ve r, be cau se Carr ol l al so m ai nt ai ns th e st at e co urt co ns tru ed Atki ns to o n arro wly, an d t hu s i ts de ci si on is “ co nt rary to” or

“ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of c le arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. He m ai nt ai ns Atki ns do es no t re qu ire in di vi du al s t o p os se ss a cert ai n IQ ( i.e. , bel ow 7 5) to sa ti sf y th e d efi ni ti on of m en ta l re tard at io n. He fu rth er as se rts th e in te ll ectua l func ti on in g p ro ng of t he m en ta l re tard at io n i nqui ry is “ in te rrel at ed ” wit h t he ad ap ti ve be ha vi orpro ng . Thu s, ac co rd in g t o C arro ll , a bo rd erl in e IQ, acco m pani edby a seri ou s m en ta l i ll ne ss th atsubs tant ia ll y im pa irs anin di vi du al ’s co gn it iv e ab il it ie s, ca n s at is fy th e d efi ni ti on of m en ta l re tard at io n i n s om e ci rcu m st an ces . He as se rts hi s ca se is on e su chcir cu m st an ce. As the di st ric t co urt n ot ed , th e m en ta l h eal th expe rts who have ev al ua te d Carr ol l h av e d ia gn os edhi m with am yria d o f m en ta l d is or de rs , in cl ud in g Although Atkins was not dec ided until 2002, mental retar dation has longbeen 1 0 considere d a mitigating c ircumstance under F lorida law. See Crook v. State , 813 So. 2d 68, 77 n.7 (F la. 2002) (listingcase s). 33sc hi zo ph ren ia , ps y ch os is , fet al alc oh ol syndr om e, br ai n d am ag e, ps y ch os ex ua l

di so rd er, an d p ers on al ity

di so rd er. Altho ug h s om e ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsu gg es ts Carr ol l m al in ge reddurin g h is ex am in at io ns , we do no t d oubtCarr ol l i nd eed su ffer s fr om

so m e, if no t m ul ti pl e, fo rm s o f m en ta l i ll ne ss . Thatsai d, the m en ta l ret ard at io n i nqui ry

is no t d iff

eren t m erel y

be cau se anin di vi du al su ffer s fr om m en ta l i ll ne ss . The i nqui ry st il l re qu ire s an in di vi du al to de m on st rat e

“ si gn ifi can tl y

suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g” al on g w ith de fic it s i n ad ap ti ve be ha vi oran d a n o ns etbe fo re ag e 1 8. Inot he r wor ds , con tra ry to Carr ol l’s as se rti on s, the in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g andad ap ti ve be havi orpro ng s m us t ea chbe sat is fie d fo r anin di vi du al to qu al ify as m en ta ll y ret ard ed . Se e Atki ns , 53 6 U.S. at30 8 n .3, 1 22 S. Ct. at22 45 n.3 (rep ro du ci ng th e Am eri can Ass oc ia ti on on Men ta l Re tard at io n’s an d the Am eri canPsychi atric Ass oc ia ti on ’s de fin it io ns of m en ta l re tard at io n, wh ic h b ot h s tate th e th ree- cri te riates t fo r m en ta l ret ard at io n i n t he co nju nc ti ve ); se e a ls o Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .13 7 (s ta ti ng si gn ifi can tl y suba ve rag e g en eral in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g m us t ex is t co nc ur re nt lywith d efi ci ts in ad ap ti ve be ha vi or ). Carr ol l fu rth er as se rts hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss canren de r hi m “ func ti on al ly m en ta ll y ret ard ed ,” as was app aren tl y th e cas e whe n aps y ch ot ic ep is od e cau se d hi m to pe rfo rm

po or ly on an IQ t es t s ho rtl y aft er h is arre st . Und er Ca rro ll ’s 34in te rp ret at io n o f Atki ns , “ th e fu nc ti on al ly m en ta ll y ret ard ed ” are als o e xe m

ptfro m ex ecu ti on . W e rejectth is arg um en t fo r th e sa m e rea so ns art ic ul at edby the di st ric t co urt. Atki ns pro te ct s o nl y th os e in di vi du al s wh o ar e m en ta ll y ret ard ed , as i s ev id en t b y

th e th irdpro ng of t he m en ta l re tard at io n i nqui ry , whi chrequi res on se t by age 1 8. Se e id. , 12 2 S . Ct. at22 45 n.3 ; se e a ls o Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .13 7. Thus , a co ns ti tu ti on al rul e ex em

pt in g t he “ func ti on al ly m en ta ll y ret ard ed ” fro m

ex ecu ti on wou ldgo be y on d t he ho ld in g o f Atki ns , so m ethi ng th is Co urt m ay no t d o wh en rev ie win g § 22 54 pe ti ti on s. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ); se e a ls o i nf ra III.B. Insu m , we con cl ud e th e st at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n t ha t Ca rro ll is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard edwas re as on ab le an d t hu s C arro ll ha s fa il edto de m on st rat e th e st at e co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s Atki ns cl ai m “was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt pr oc eed in g.” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). W e al so ho ldth e st at e tr ia l co urt reas on ab ly app li edth e co nt ro ll in g S up rem e Co urt p rece de nt( Atki ns ) an d t hu s i ts de ci si on was n ot“ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Acco rd in gl y , we den y th is cl ai m .

353. Whethe r this ca se sh ou ld be rema nded

fo r the distri ct

co ur t to c on du ct an evi de nt ia ryhe ar in g. Carr ol l al te rn at iv el y

arg ue s thi s C ou rt s ho ul d re m an d h is Atki ns cla im to th e di st ric t co urt fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng to de te rm in e h is m en ta l capa ci ty. The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldfed eral co urts m us t t ak e in to acco un t the de fere nt ia l st an da rd s p res cri be d b y

AEDPA in d et erm in in g wh ethe r anev id en ti ary he ari ng is ap pr op ria te . Se e S

ch ri ro v. La nd

ri ga n , 55 0 U.S. 4 65 , 47 4, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 93 3, 1 94 0 (2 00 7) . “ It f

ol lo ws tha t i f th e rec or d re fu te s the ap pl ic an t’s fa ctua l al le ga ti on s o r ot he rwis e p recl ud es habe as rel ie f, a d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto ho ldan ev id en ti ary he ari ng .” Id. at 4 74 , 12 7 S . Ct. at19 40 . In thi s ca se , th e fac tu al reco rd is su ffi ci en t fo r th is Co urt t o c on cl ud e th e st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n was no t

“ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law o r

“ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Se e su pr a III.A.2 . Am

pl e ev id en ce, i n the form

of e xh au st iv e expe rt t es ti m on y fro m Carr ol l’s co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , tri al , andin it ia l p os t-c on vi ct io n e vi de nt iary he ari ng , supp orts th e st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t h e is no t m en ta ll y ret ard ed . Accor di ng ly, anev id en ti ary he ari ng on Carr ol l’s Atki ns cla im is un ne ces sa ry . 1 1 Although Ca

rroll did not expl icitly

raise the argument, we c onclude, f or the same 1 1 rea sons, the district court did not abuse its discre tion in dis posing of Carroll’s § 2254 pe tition without conductingan evide ntiary hearing. 36B. Equa l Pr ot ect io n— Men ta l Il ln es s Inad di ti on to hi s m en ta l re tard at io n c la im s, Ca rro ll m ai nt ai ns he is als o ex em ptfro m ex ecu ti on be cau se he is m en ta ll y il l. He m ai nt ai ns th e rat io na le be hi ndth e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Atki ns ap pl ie s equa ll y to pe rs on s “ who are un ab le to co nt ro l the ir c on du ctdu e to m en ta l i ll ne ss .” Sp eci fic al ly, he no te s m en ta ll y il l p ers on s, l ik e th e m en ta ll y ret ard ed , actwith ales se r m or al cu lp ab il ity , an d t hi s l es se r cu lp ab il ity do es no t m eri t re tri bu ti on inth e fo rm of t he de ath pe na lty . Carro ll als o a ss ert s ex ecu ti ng m en ta ll y il l p ers on s d oe s n otfurth er the go al of d et erre nc e b ecau se , li ke th e m en ta ll y ret ard ed , th e m en ta ll y

il l ca nn ot pr oc es s the po ss ib il ity

of e xe cuti on as ape na lty an d c on tro l the ir c on du ctba se d o n th atin fo rm at io n. Ca rro ll arg ue s the st at e co urt’s fa il ur e to ap pl y Atki ns to th e m en ta ll y il l was a vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o e qu al pro te ct io n. Atki ns di d n otex pl ic it ly addres s the su it ab il ity of c ap it al pu ni sh m en t wi th in th e co nt ex t o f m en ta ll y

il l i nd iv idua ls . Carro ll , ho wev er, reque st s thi s C ou rt ex te nd Atki ns to pro hi bi t the ex ecu ti on of t he m en ta ll y il l. Su chanex te ns io n wou ldco ns ti tu te a ne w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law. Se e S pa zi an o v . Si ng le ta ry , 36 F.3 d 1 02 8, 1 04 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) (“ Eve n i f th e res ul t the habe as pe ti ti on er s eek s i s withi n t he lo gi cal co m

pa ss of apri orSupr em e Co urt d eci si on ; ev enif p rio r Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s i nf orm , or e ve n c on tro l o r go ve rn , th e an al y si s o f th e

37cl ai m ; i t i s s ti ll a ne w rul e cl ai m un le ss th e ru le is actua ll y di ct at edby pre-e xi st in g pr eced en t.” ( in te rn al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). Und er AEDPA, ho wev er, thi s C ou rt c an no t cr eat e n ew ru le s o f co ns ti tu ti on al law wi th in th e co nt ex t o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on by a sta te pri so ne r. Se e28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) (s ta ti ng a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t h ab eas rel ie f to a st at e p ris on er u nl es s the ad jud ic at io n o f hi s cl ai m

inst at e co urt “ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on trary to , orin vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Su

pr eme Co ur t o

f the Uni te d Sta tes ” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Acco rd in gl y , san s a d eci si on fro m th e Supr em e Co urt b arri ng th e ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y il l p ris on ers , we rejectCarr ol l’s cl ai m th athe is ex em

ptfro m ex ecu ti on be cau se he is m en ta ll y

il l. IV. CONCLUSION Carr ol l h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th e st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on th athe was n ot en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r Atki ns was “ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of ” cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law o r “ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n. AFFIRMED.

38