Opinion ID: 1702189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether Berry is Entitled to an Atkins Hearing.

Text: ¶ 82. At the outset, we note that we previously considered Berry's mental capacity in Berry II. See Berry II, 703 So.2d at 293-94. [8] However, because he was sentenced pre- Atkins, this issue was not scrutinized under the standards now imposed under Atkins. ¶ 83. In support of his claim that he is entitled to an Atkins hearing, Berry relies on affidavits from family members, a report from a social worker, testimony of psychologist, and in addition to other proof. Because the issue of his mental capacity and competency were prevalent throughout his trials and appeals, he also cites the record from the previous appeals. The State relies heavily on the testimony of Dr. Charlton Stanley and Dr. Paul Blanton. ¶ 84. Testifying during the sentencing phase of the original trial, Dr. Charlton Stanley, a forensic psychologist, testified that Berry had an IQ of 83, which classified him in the dull normal range of intellectual function. Though Dr. Stanley found that he suffered from organic brain damage, he testified that Berry was not mentally retarded. ¶ 85. Next, there is the evidence and testimony that was presented during resentencing. At this time, Berry called Dr. Paul Blanton, a clinical psychologist, who testified that Berry: 1) had full scale IQ of 76 (borderline intellectual functioning), and how such an IQ would affect him; 2) suffered from significant frontal lobe impairment; and 3) was not mentally retarded. ¶ 86. Second to testify was social worker Hope Stone, who testified regarding a report in which he outlined significant personal and family background information on Berry. The report showed that Berry's father suffered from mental illness and was treated at Whitfield; Berry had demonstrated poor educational performance; Berry had sustained several head traumas; Berry was treated at Whitfield in 1981; and that, from August 1987 thru November 1987, he was treated for paranoid schizophrenia at Pines Aftercare Program in Starkville. ¶ 87. Testifying last was Dr. Lewis Tetlow, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed Berry as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. ¶ 88. Aside from the testimony, Berry cites several affidavits from family and friends swearing, inter alia, that: 1) they had long known of that he was slow and lacked the appropriate mental capabilities for someone his age; 2) attended special educational classes; 3) as a child he was hospitalized for cottonseed oil poisoning. ¶ 89. To show that his intellectual deficiencies were documented prior to age 18, a standardized tests scores from January 1972 (13 years old) were provided. The report indicates that his I.Q. was 72. [9] ¶ 90. Last, there are the notes and records from staff at the Mississippi Department of Corrections hospital at Parchman following suicide attempts in 1981 and 1985. [10] During October of 1981, Berry was hospitalized after attempting suicide (swallowed razor blades). He was subsequently placed in the psychiatric wing. Staff notes during this period indicate that they considered him mentally retarded. ¶ 91. Again in April of 1985, Berry was admitted to the hospital after attempting suicide and, again the staff's notes indicate that they considered him to be mentally retarded. ¶ 92. We recently addressed the standard for determining whether a defendant is mentally retarded as to render him or her ineligible for capital punishment. See Chase v. State, 873 So.2d at 1019-23. If, on post-conviction review, a defendant produces evidence that he or she has scored 75 or below on an IQ test, we are to grant an evidentiary hearing for a mental retardation determination. ¶ 93. Chase requires that, in order to merit an Atkins hearing, the defendant or petitioner must produce the affidavit of a qualified expert stating that the defendant or petitioner is mentally retarded. Here, other than Dr. Blanton's testimony that Berry was probably not mentally retarded, there is no evidence in the record which would compel us to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation. See Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933 (Miss.2004). This claim is without merit.
¶ 94. Berry argues that post-conviction review be granted based on cumulative errors. Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 946 (Miss.1986) (death sentence vacated in view of numerous near-errors which violated defendant's right to a fair trial). ¶ 95. After reviewing the record and considering the cumulative effect of any error or near error, we find that this issue is without merit.