Opinion ID: 622282
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court also finds, upon full review of this

Text: claim, that if [Richardson’s] allegations were indeed errors, and this Court specifically finds no errors, such errors would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The MAR court also rejected Richardson’s argument that the State withheld from him certain exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady. The MAR court held that Richardson’s Brady claim was procedurally barred, but also held alternatively on the merits that there were no errors with respect to this issue, and that, even if there were errors, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The MAR court further held that the Court finds as a fact that there is no reasonable possibility that, had the alleged error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial. With respect to Richardson’s claim that he was mentally retarded and could not be executed without violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the MAR court initially deferred ruling on the claim and ordered an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the parties introduced the testimony of their respective mental health experts. After considering this evidence, the MAR court entered an order denying the mental retardation claim. The MAR court’s order, issued after the Supreme Court decided Atkins, included numerous findings of 10 RICHARDSON v. BRANKER fact supporting the MAR court’s conclusion. After setting forth its factual findings, the MAR court held: [Richardson] has experienced some difficulty in the area of adaptive functioning, but [ ] he is not significantly impaired in his adaptive functioning as required by [N.C.G.S. §] 15A-2002. The Court also finds that there is some evidence that [Richardson] suffers some reduced mental capacity, but that he is not mentally retarded as set out in [N.C.G.S. §] 15A2005. The Court further finds that the defendant has failed to meet the burden of proof requiring the defendant to show that he has significantly sub average adaptive skills in at least two areas as set out in the General Statutes of North Carolina. The defendant has also failed to show that he suffers from Mental Retardation as required by [N.C.G.S. §] 15A2005. After the MAR court denied Richardson’s claims, Richardson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. That court denied Richardson’s petition. 667 S.E.2d 272 (N.C. 2008).