Opinion ID: 2210585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retroactive Application of Mental Retardation Exemption

Text: As a threshold issue, Rondon argues that Indiana Code sections 35-50-2-9 and 35-36-9-6 (1998), [5] exempting mentally retarded individuals from the death penalty, should apply to him retroactively in order to comport with his constitutional rights including equal protection, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and due process. We previously addressed whether Indiana Code sections 35-50-2-9 and 35-36-9-1 to -7 (1998) should be applied retroactively in Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760 (Ind.1997). In Allen, we stated that [a]bsent a constitutional mandate for the rule exempting mentally retarded individuals, this Court is neither expected nor required to engage in retroactivity analysis. Rather, the extent of our writ is to enforce the law as it was at the time [he] committed his crimes. Id. at 786. The language of the public law amending the statute underscores this point. As we observed in Allen, the General Assembly specifically legislated and the Governor signed into law a statute of repose for claims of mental retardation in capital cases tried before July 1, 1994, rather than amending the Constitution or leaving the act open-ended for judicial interpretation. Id. (citing Pub.L. 158-1994, § 8, 1994 Ind. Acts 1857). Thus, even if the post-conviction court found Rondon to be mentally retarded, which it did not, the statute simply does not apply to him. Nonetheless, Rondon asserts that he is mentally retarded and if the statute is not applied retroactively, the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions will be violated. We will briefly address each issue in turn.
Rondon argues that the statutory exemption for mentally retarded individuals must apply retroactively to comport with the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Indiana Constitution provides that the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. IND. CONST. art. I, § 23. Since Rondon did not develop a cogent Fourteenth Amendment argument as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7), we will discuss only his equal privileges and immunities claim under the Indiana Constitution. Rondon argues that in amending the death penalty statute, the legislature created two classes of mentally retarded individuals: those who were convicted before the July 1, 1994, effective date, and those who were convicted after that date. Rondon claims that the date draws an arbitrary and discriminatory distinction between two similarly situated classes in violation of the equal privileges and immunities clause. When analyzing an equal privileges claim under Article 1, Section 23, this Court applies a two step analysis as established in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (Ind.1994). First, the disparate treatment accorded by the legislation must be reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the unequally treated classes. Second, the preferential treatment must be uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons similarly situated. Id. In other words, Rondon argues that the statute distinguishing between mentally retarded individuals convicted prior to and after July 1, 1994, must be reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the two groups of mentally retarded defendants. However, we do not agree with Rondon's characterization of the distinguished classes. The unequally treated classes here are mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded defendants convicted after July 1, 1994. Thus, the issue is whether the statutory exemption of mentally retarded defendants from the death penalty is reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded defendants. The General Assembly enacted this legislation to exempt from the death penalty mentally retarded defendants whose cognitive, volitional, and moral capacity to act with the degree of culpability associated with the death penalty is now questioned. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 338, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2957, 106 L.Ed.2d 256, 291 (1989). The exemption for mentally retarded defendants is reasonably related to their inability to act with the requisite culpability sufficient to warrant the death penalty and reasonably justifies the distinction between mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded defendants. We find that Rondon's claim with respect to the first prong of the test in Collins must fail. Even if Rondon prevailed under the first prong of the Collins test, we nonetheless find that Rondon's claim that he is similarly situated to those mentally retarded defendants convicted after July 1, 1994, fails under the second prong. Amendments to a law that are coupled with a savings clause [6] do not create two similarly situated groups of people. Rivera v. State, 179 Ind.App. 295, 385 N.E.2d 455, 457 (1979). Criminal statutes apply exclusively to one class of people, those who violate the law, and they relate to the specific point in time that a violation occurs. Upon alteration of the criminal law, individuals subsequently convicted are not similarly situated and cannot be equated to those previously convicted. [7] Id. at 457. Also, as we noted in State v. Alcorn , the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by the offender. 638 N.E.2d 1242, 1245 (Ind.1994). The criminal, not the State, chooses which statute applies. Rondon is bound by the laws in effect at the time he committed the crime. In 1984, the time of this crime, mentally retarded individuals were included within the group of persons eligible to receive the death penalty. We find that Rondon is not similarly situated to mentally retarded defendants convicted after July 1, 1994, and therefore, he has no viable equal privileges and immunities claim.
Rondon also argues that sentencing mentally retarded individuals to death under the prior statute is now constitutionally prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution in light of the legislative amendments exempting mentally retarded individuals from the death penalty. We have already determined in Allen v. State that Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution is not violated under the circumstances, and we decline to revisit the issue today. [8] 686 N.E.2d 760, 786 (Ind.1997). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has examined this issue and held that the Eighth Amendment is not violated per se by the execution of a mentally retarded individual. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 340, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2958, 106 L.Ed.2d 256, 292 (1989). However, the Court seemed to leave room for reconsideration if objective evidence of contemporary standards of decency demonstrated a national consensus that sentencing mentally retarded persons to death inflicts cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 334, 109 S.Ct. 2934. The Court observed that the Eighth Amendment recognizes evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Id. at 330-31, 109 S.Ct. 2934 (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958)). These evolving standards are best measured through the objective statements of state legislation. Id. At the time Penry was decided, only two states had laws either in force or enacted, but not yet effective, which banned execution of the mentally retarded. Id. at 334, 109 S.Ct. 2934. The Court concluded that, based on this objective evidence, a national consensus that sentencing mentally retarded defendants to death inflicts cruel and unusual punishment did not exist. Id. Rondon suggests that there now exists a consensus amongst the states that sentencing mentally retarded defendants to death inflicts cruel and unusual punishment. Of the thirty-eight states employing the death penalty, Rondon cites to eleven states which prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded. [9] He also cites to the twelve states which do not employ any form of capital punishment to support his claim. [10] Further, Rondon offers that of the 76% of Indiana residents who favor the death penalty, 74% do not favor its application to the mentally retarded. [11] While this may reflect an increasing trend against execution of the mentally retarded, we are strained to find national consensus from these statistics. To illustrate the extent of objective evidence needed to prove national consensus, the Court in Penry contrasted the number of states which prohibited the execution of the insane in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 408 & n. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2601 & n. 2, 91 L.Ed.2d 335, 346 & n. 2 (1986), to the number of states which prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded. Id. Referring to Ford, the Court identified that [n]o State permitted the execution of the insane, and 26 States had statutes explicitly requiring suspension of the execution of a capital defendant who became insane. Other States had adopted the common law prohibition against executing the insane. Id. The Court further illustrated objective evidence of contemporary standards of decency in describing that 18 States expressly established a minimum age in their death penalty statutes, and all of them required that the defendant have attained at least the age of 16 at the time of the offense. Id. (citing Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 829 & n. 30, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 2695-96 & n. 30, 101 L.Ed.2d 702, 714-15 & n. 30 (1988)). In comparison, evidence that eleven states ban execution of the mentally retarded falls short of the objective evidence necessary to show national consensus as suggested in Penry. Moreover, evidence that of the 76% of Indiana residents who favor capital punishment, 74% disfavor executing mentally retarded individuals does not bolster Rondon's position. This statistic is specific to Indiana, which alone, surely cannot be viewed as the national position. The Court in Penry reviewed similar statistics and concluded that: [t]he public sentiment expressed in these and other polls and resolutions may ultimately find expression in legislation, which is an objective indicator of contemporary values upon which we can rely. But at present, there is insufficient evidence of a national consensus against executing mentally retarded people convicted of capital offenses for us to conclude that it is categorically prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 335, 109 S.Ct. 2934. We do not find today sufficient objective evidence of contemporary standards of decency which demonstrates that a categorical exemption of the mentally retarded from the death penalty is mandated by the Eighth Amendment.
Rondon maintains that he was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Although Rondon does not clearly develop his due process claim, it appears that he alleges a violation of substantive due process under the Federal Constitution. [12] In support of his claim, however, Rondon cites to several procedural due process cases [13] and only two substantive due process cases. Moreover, in both substantive due process cases, the Court rejected the substantive due process claims. In the first case, the Court did not find a violation of substantive due process when considering whether pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 constitutes an impermissible punishment. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2105-06, 95 L.Ed.2d 697, 714 (1987). In the second case, the Court declined to find a substantive due process violation when it considered whether a juvenile alien has a fundamental right to be released from custody, but not into the custody of any adult or institution, pending the deportation hearing. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 299-300, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 1446, 123 L.Ed.2d 1, 15 (1993). These cases do not further Rondon's rather vague substantive due process argument and we find no support for this claim.