Opinion ID: 1920803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim II: Atkins

Text: Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203, Hill was required to raise any claim he may have under Atkins within sixty days of October 1, 2004. He failed to do this; therefore, his claim is procedurally barred. In addition, the trial court correctly determined that this claim is also procedurally barred under rule 3.851(e)(2)(B). As stated in its December 23, 2005, order, the Atkins decision was rendered in 2002, and [Hill] has provided no reason as to why he could not have raised this claim in his successive motion filed in 2003. The psychological evaluation Hill primarily relies upon to establish this claim was conducted in 1989. Hill does not claim that this study was not available to him at an earlier time, nor is there any indication that this evaluation was inadequate. While Hill does allege a December 15, 2005, psychological evaluation to support his claim, this evaluation provides no truly new evidence to support Hill's claim. This newest evaluation declares that Hill has mild mental retardation; however, it finds Hill's IQ to be sixteen points above the level required to establish mental retardation in Florida. Such a finding does not exempt a defendant from execution. See Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1201 (Fla.2005) (finding that in order to be exempt from execution under Atkins, a defendant must meet Florida's standard for mental retardation, which requires he establish that he has an IQ of 70 or below). This claim is procedurally barred.