Opinion ID: 1423838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The proper procedure for claims post- Atkins

Text: This case was unduly complicated by the lack of a clear procedure. Parkus had received a death sentence prior to Atkins and Johnson . Parkus was unsure of his relief and sought both a recall of the mandate and habeas corpus. This Court, instead, issued a writ of mandamus because the original claim in Washington County as to Parkus' mental competency to be executed had not been adjudicated. Atkins and Johnson preclude imposition of the death sentence if the defendant is mentally retarded. Johnson permits review of the defendant's mental retardation claim if the defendant is able to articulate specific facts indicating his mental deficiency. This review is limited to those defendants who received a death sentence for an offense occurring prior to August 28, 2001 (the effective date of section 565.030) and asserting a claim of mental retardation. [5] The defendant shall file a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. State ex rel. Nixon v. Daugherty, 186 S.W.3d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 2006). [6] The respondents shall be the director of the department of corrections [7] and the attorney general. [8] The defendant shall state specific facts indicating his mental retardation as defined in section 565.030.6. If factual issues are in dispute, the Court will appoint a master. If the Court determines the defendant is mentally retarded as defined in section 565.030.6, it will make peremptory its alternative writ of mandamus, recall its mandate in the direct appeal, and resentence the defendant to life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole, or release except by act of the governor. Whitfield at 272.