Opinion ID: 3043524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits Determination

Text: We must also consider the alternative basis the Alabama appellate court used for its affirmance of the dismissal of Smith’s Rule 32 petition: its merits determination that the trial evidence conclusively showed that Smith is not “mentally retarded” and thus his Atkins claim fails. 22 See Crawford, 311 F.3d at 1326. That merits determination was a finding of fact. See Fults v. GDCP Warden, 764 F.3d 1311, 1319 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A determination as to whether a person is mentally retarded is a finding of fact.”). We review the Alabama appellate court’s merits ruling first on Smith’s intellectual functioning and then on Smith’s adaptive behavior. As to Smith’s intellectual functioning, we agree with the State that Alabama law generally does not contain a strict IQ cut-off of 70 to establish intellectual Second, the state court unreasonably concluded that Brumfield “presented no evidence of adaptive impairment.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2277, 2279. The Supreme Court concluded that the state court’s factual determination—that the record failed to raise any question as to Brumfield’s impairment in adaptive skills—was unreasonable because “the evidence in the statecourt record provided substantial grounds to question Brumfield’s adaptive functioning.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2280. 22 In reviewing Smith’s intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals considered both Smith’s first and second amended Rule 32 petitions and the evidentiary record from Smith’s trial. Accordingly, we do the same. See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 1398. 33 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 34 of 39 disability. See Thomas v. Allen, 607 F.3d 749, 757 (11th Cir. 2010) (“There is no Alabama case law stating that a single IQ raw score, or even multiple IQ raw scores, above 70 automatically defeats an Atkins claim when the totality of the evidence (scores) indicates that a capital offender suffers subaverage intellectual functioning.”). But the problem for the State here is that the trial evidence showed that Smith’s IQ score could be as low as 69 given a standard error of measurement of plus-or-minus three points. There was also other trial evidence of deficits in intellectual functioning, including that Smith (1) did arithmetic at a kindergarten level, which was consistent with an IQ of 45; (2) suffered from dyslexia; (3) failed seventh grade and dropped out of school in the eighth grade;23 (4) struggled to recall learned and acquired information; and (5) was “quite weak in word knowledge and usage.” Despite this trial evidence pointing to significant deficits in Smith’s intellectual functioning, and even though the state trial court had not conducted an evidentiary hearing, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the record conclusively established Smith was not mentally retarded and could never meet Perkins’s intellectual-functioning requirement. Considering the record evidence before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the fact that Alabama does not 23 In Smith’s second amended Rule 32 petition, he also alleged that school records show he never successfully completed any grade beyond the fifth grade. 34 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 35 of 39 employ a strict IQ cut-off score of 70, the factual determination that Smith conclusively did not possess significantly subaverage intellectual functioning was an unreasonable determination of the facts. See Burgess v. Comm’r, Alabama Dep’t of Corr., 723 F.3d 1308, 1319 (11th Cir. 2013) (“We hold that the state court’s determination that [the petitioner] is not mentally retarded is an unreasonable determination of fact because it was based upon a combination of erroneous factual findings directly contradicted by the record and a record that was insufficient to support its conclusions.”); cf. Brumfield, 576 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2278 (“To conclude, as the state trial court did, that [the petitioner’s] reported IQ score of 75 somehow demonstrated that he could not possess subaverage intelligence . . . reflected an unreasonable determination of the facts.”). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals also determined conclusively that Smith did not suffer from significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior. See Smith II, 71 So. 3d at 20. This conclusion was similarly based wholly on the Alabama appellate court’s factual determination that there was “no indication” from the trial record “that Smith had significant defects in adaptive behavior.” See id.; cf. Brumfield, 576 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2276–77 (reviewing under § 2254(d)(2) a state court’s factual determination that the record included “no evidence” of adaptive impairment). In other words, there was no record evidence at all of adaptive-behavior impairment. 35 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 36 of 39 Even assuming that a petitioner must show deficits areas that are identified in both of the clinical definitions in Atkins, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that the record provided “no indication” that Smith had significant deficits in adaptive behavior was an objectively unreasonable determination of the facts. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340, 123 S. Ct. at 1041. Indeed, the record affirmatively contradicts this conclusion that there was “no indication” of significant deficits in Smith’s adaptive behavior. There was evidence in the record before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals that would support a fact finding that Smith had significant limitations in at least two of the adaptive skills identified by both clinical definitions: (1) social/interpersonal skills and (2) self-direction. First, as to social/interpersonal skills, Dr. Chudy concluded that Smith “never learned how to incorporate successfully into [society’s] norms.” Dr. Chudy classified Smith’s “personality functioning” as “dysfunctional,” noted that Smith “scored well below average in skills having to do with social reasoning and learning how to respond effectively in social situations,” and stated that Smith “showed a major deficiency in his ability to predict social sequences of action.” Also relevant to this social-skills inquiry, Dr. Chudy found that Smith’s emotional problems limited his “ability to deal with everyday stresses and demands” and caused him to “withdraw[ ] from others.” Furthermore, Dr. Chudy concluded that 36 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 37 of 39 Smith “takes little notice of things around him” and “does not think through things.” Second, as to self-direction, Dr. Chudy concluded that Smith “lacks any direction or goal in life.” Dr. Chudy found that Smith’s “indifferent and ineffectual” mindset provided “little basis for [Smith] acting in a consistently sensible manner or learning from experience . . . even when it involves bringing on pain to himself or those closest to him.” Dr. Chudy also concluded that Smith “is often overwhelmed with incomprehensible feelings or impulses that he does not understand” and “possesses extremely limited insight and judgment.” In addition, Smith’s Rule 32 petition alleged that Smith (1) is prone to impulsive behaviors, (2) lacks the ability to formulate premeditated plans, and (3) acts as a follower in groups. Considering all the foregoing, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ finding that there was “no indication that Smith had significant defects in adaptive behavior,” Smith II, 71 So. 3d at 20, is unsupported (and, in fact, contradicted) by the record and therefore unreasonable, see Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 528–29, 123 S. Ct. at 2539; cf. Brumfield, 576 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2279–82 (holding a state court’s “conclusion that the [trial] record failed to raise any question” as to the petitioner’s adaptive behavior was an unreasonable determination of the facts). Accordingly, its merits determination (at the early dismissal stage) as to Smith’s 37 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 38 of 39 adaptive behavior functioning was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.