Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 455

294 

WOOD  v.  ALLEN 

Opinion of the Court 

I 

In 1993, petitioner Holly Wood broke  into the home of his 
ex-girlfriend and shot her in the head and face as she lay in 
her bed.  The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the 
hospital.  Charged with capital murder during a ﬁrst-degree 
burglary,  Wood  was  represented  at  trial  in  Alabama  state 
court  by  three  court-appointed  attorneys:  Cary  Dozier  and 
Frank  Ralph, both  of whom  had signiﬁcant  trial experience, 
and  Kenneth  Trotter,  who  had  been  admitted  to  the  bar  for 
ﬁve  months  at  the  time  he  was  appointed.  The  jury  con­
victed  Wood  at  the  guilt  phase  of  trial  and  recommended  a 
death  sentence  at  the  penalty  phase  by  a  vote  of  10  to  2. 
After a separate sentencing hearing, the trial judge imposed 
the death penalty.  The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals 
afﬁrmed Wood’s conviction and sentence, Ex parte Wood, 715 
So. 2d 812 (1996), as did the Alabama Supreme Court, Wood 
v.  State, 715 So. 2d 819 (1998).  This Court denied certiorari. 
Wood  v.  Alabama, 525 U. S. 1042 (1998). 

Wood  petitioned for  state postconviction  relief under  Ala­
bama  Rule  of  Criminal  Procedure  32,  arguing,  among  other 
things,  that  he  was  mentally  retarded  and  not  eligible  for 
the death penalty, and that his trial counsel were ineffective 
under  Strickland  v.  Washington,  466  U. S.  668  (1984),  be­
cause  they  failed  to  investigate  and  present  evidence  of 
his  mental  deﬁciencies  during  the  penalty  phase  of  trial. 
App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  198a–202a,  207a–210a,  213a–216a, 
220a–221a,  225a.  The  Rule  32  court  held  two  evidentiary 
hearings and denied Wood’s claims.  On appeal, the Alabama 
Court  of  Criminal  Appeals  remanded  for  further  consider­
ation  in  light  of  Atkins  v.  Virginia,  536  U. S.  304  (2002), 
which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execu­
tion  of  the  mentally  retarded.  Wood  v.  State,  891  So.  2d 
398 (2003). 

On  remand,  the  Rule  32  court  conducted  a  third  eviden­
tiary  hearing  and  once  again  denied  relief.  As  to  Wood’s 
claim  of  mental  retardation,  the  court  found  that,  while  the