Opinion ID: 63723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mental Retardation Claim

Text: The primary claim in this appeal is that Williams is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). In Atkins, the Supreme Court held that under the Eighth Amendment’s “evolving standards of decency” review, “death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal.” Id. at 321. The Atkins Court did not adopt specific criteria for determining mental retardation. Rather, the Court left to the states “the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction . . . .” Id. at 317. Since then, the TCCA has developed standards by which it evaluates an inmate’s claim of mental retardation. See Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The TCCA adopted the framework established by the American Association on Mental Retardation (“AAMR”) in conjunction with standards contained in the Texas Persons with Mental Retardation Act (“PMRA”), TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 591.003(13). According to the AAMR definition, Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 309 n.3 (quoting MENTAL RETARDATION: DEFINITION, CLASSIFICATION, AND SYSTEMS OF SUPPORTS 5 (9th ed. 1992)). Under the PMRA, “‘mental retardation’ means significantly subaverage general intellectual 14 No. 07-70006 functioning that is concurrent with deficits in adaptive behavior and originates during the developmental period.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 591.003(13). Combining and summarizing these definitions, Texas courts define mental retardation as characterized by “(1) ‘significantly subaverage’ general intellectual functioning; (2) accompanied by ‘related’ limitations in adaptive functioning; (3) the onset of which occurs prior to the age of 18.” Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 7 (footnotes omitted). To obtain habeas relief, Williams must show that he meets all three elements. See Clark v. Quarterman, 457 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir. 2006). We consider each of these elements in turn.
In a habeas corpus appeal, this court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Ramirez v. Dretke, 396 F.3d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 2005). This court reviews mixed questions of law and fact under a de novo standard by independently applying the law to the facts found by the district court, as long as those facts are not clearly erroneous. Id. The determination of whether Briseno’s three prongs have been met is a factual finding that we review for clear error. See Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349, 361-63 (5th Cir. 2007). “‘A finding is clearly erroneous only if it is implausible in the light of the record considered as a whole.’” Id. (quoting St. Aubin v. Quarterman, 470 F.3d 1096, 1101 (5th Cir. 2006)). “If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. ii. Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning 15 No. 07-70006
In determining intellectual functioning, the Briseno court focused on IQ: “Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is defined as an IQ of about 70 or below (approximately 2 standard deviations below the mean).” Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 7 n.24 (quoting DSM-IV8 at 39). Mental health professionals apply this standard flexibly, and “sometimes a person whose IQ has tested above 70 may be diagnosed as mentally retarded while a person whose IQ tests below 70 may not be mentally retarded.” Id. In Briseno, for example, the petitioner’s IQ test results ranged from a low of 67 to a high of 88. Id. at 14 n.53. In that case, the court nevertheless concluded that recent IQ scores of 72 and 74 were a more accurate reflection of the petitioner’s intelligence. Id. at 14. Therefore, the petitioner was not mentally retarded. Id. at 18. b. Magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation The evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing amounts to a battle of the experts. The experts agree that Williams achieved a full scale IQ of 70 or 71 on three separate tests. The experts disagree on whether those scores are a valid measure of Williams’s intellectual functioning. The government claims these low scores are the result of malingering—deliberately achieving low scores. Williams disagrees, arguing that it would have been impossible to achieve such consistent results over time by malingering. The district court credited expert testimony that Williams’s low IQ scores were lower than if he had been randomly guessing. In other words, he must have intentionally given wrong answers. The court also contrasted Williams’s low IQ scores with his academic competence: scores on academic achievement tests in middle school and high school; grades earned in high school; and Williams’s writing ability, as evidence by the letter he wrote to the 8 AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS (4th ed. 2000) (“DSM-IV”). 16 No. 07-70006 Administrative Separation Board while serving in the Navy. The court concluded that “Williams’[s] strengths are simply too strong to support the conclusion that he has an IQ of 70 or below, or is otherwise significantly subaverage in intellectual functioning.” The court found that the root of Williams’s problems in school was behavioral, not intellectual, and his academic problems also could have been related to alcohol and drug abuse. The court also considered testimony of multiple witnesses who did not believe that Williams was mentally retarded. The district court concluded that Williams has an IQ substantially higher than the threshold of 70. The magistrate judge noted that while Williams’s full scale IQ scores were consistent over time, the two components of the IQ test—verbal and performance—fluctuated markedly. The district court ultimately sided with the government’s expert in concluding that “Williams’ performance on academic achievement tests taken in middle-school, high-school, and as an adult are uniformly inconsistent with his purported IQ.” The court also cited Williams’s high school grades (“Williams took classes at the twelfth-grade level, earned an 80 and 89 in two semesters of Chemistry, graduated with a C average and had a class rank of 326 out of 480”) and his writing ability (as evidenced by several letters in the hearing record) as inconsistent with a finding of mental retardation. c. Analysis In this appeal, Williams challenges the district court’s conclusion that his IQ scores are not an accurate indication of his intellectual functioning. Williams argues that (1) his IQ scores were too consistent over time to be inaccurate or intentionally low, (2) there is no direct evidence of malingering in two of his three IQ tests, and (3) other factors relied on by the district court should not override his IQ scores. 17 No. 07-70006 In applying Briseno, the Fifth Circuit counsels a flexible approach to reading IQ scores, warning that “courts should not rigidly consider an IQ score to be determinative of the defendant’s intellectual functioning.” Clark, 457 F.3d at 444-45; see also Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 7 n.24 (“Psychologists and other mental health professionals are flexible in their assessment of mental retardation.”). Superficially, Williams’s IQ scores are remarkably consistent. Dr. Kessner, Williams’s expert, testified about the unlikelihood that a test-taker could intentionally achieve such consistent scores: Q How would you estimate the difficulty of being able to attain intentionally a target score on three tests over a course of 14 or 15 years with three different administrators? A I think the probability of that is as low or lower than any probability of anything I could think of. I mean . . . Q Like winning the Powerball? A Extremely limited. I hesitate to say a number, but will say I think it’s almost impossible. Dr. Kessner added, “I cannot for the life of me figure out how someone could malinger so elegantly as to get the same scores on these tests over time.” Nevertheless, the components underlying these scores undermine the consistency argument. In 1992, Williams’s full scale score of 70 was derived from a verbal IQ of 79 and a performance IQ of 65. In Dr. Kessner’s administration of the IQ test, Williams’s full scale score was 71, but his verbal score dropped to 70 while his performance score rose to 77. In Dr. Allen’s administration, the full scale score remained 71 but the component scores flipflopped again, with a non-verbal score of 70 and a verbal IQ of 75. Thus, in different administrations, Williams was capable of scoring as high as a 77 on the performance section and a 79 on the verbal—both outside the mental retardation range. Thus, the district court did not commit clear error in concluding that 18 No. 07-70006 these IQ scores do not support a finding of mental retardation because the district court’s finding is plausible in light of the record. Williams also challenges the district court’s reliance on Dr. Allen’s finding of malingering. The district court credited Dr. Allen’s testimony on the results of the GWMT, which revealed that Williams was not putting forth a good effort during that test administration. According to Dr. Allen, Williams’s score on one portion of the GWMT—“immediate recall”—was worse than chance; in other words, Williams must have intentionally missed questions. In another portion of that test—“delayed recall”—Williams’s score was lower than a score expected from a person hospitalized with advanced dementia. Dr. Allen testified that the GWMT is “the most widely researched test of effort in literature and on the market.” Williams failed this test while groups of mentally retarded children and adults have passed it. Adjusting Williams’s IQ score for poor effort, Dr. Allen estimated that Williams’s true IQ score is “in the 90 range.” Dr. Kessner administered a different test for effort, the REY 15. Based in part on Williams’s performance on that test, Dr. Kessner believed that he put forth adequate effort. However, the district court found this testimony less persuasive than Dr. Allen’s testimony on effort. Further, Drs. Kessner and Garnett conceded that the REY 15 is not an effective test of effort—they both testified there is no instrument that can be used to reliably test effort in institutionalized individuals that has been published, researched, and supported in scientific literature. Dr. Allen testified at length about the research underlying the GWMT and various cutoff scores for effort. By contrast, Dr. Kessner’s testimony about Williams’s effort was highly subjective. It therefore was not clear error for the district court—given this contradictory testimony—to credit Dr. Allen’s opinion.9 9 In Williams’s first IQ test, Dr. Hood did not administer a standardized test for effort. In her notes, Dr. Hood wrote that Williams appeared to put forth a good effort, but he did not 19 No. 07-70006 Finally, Williams argues that the district court erred in using achievement test scores to override IQ scores that suggested borderline mental retardation. To the extent that this argument urges us to credit IQ scores to the exclusion of all other measures of intelligence, we decline to do so. Dr. Allen testified that achievement tests and IQ scores are highly correlated, and he discredited at least one of Williams’s IQ scores on the basis of malingering. Dr. Kessner could provide no rationale for the discrepancy between Williams’s IQ scores and his academic achievement. Ultimately, the district court found Dr. Allen’s explanation to be “more credible.” Such a credibility determination is a finding of fact that this court reviews for clear error. See Lewis v. Dretke, 355 F.3d 364, 368 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2000) (“‘The burden of showing that the findings of the district court are clearly erroneous is heavier if the credibility of witnesses is a factor in the trial court’s decision.’” (quoting Dunbar Med. Sys., Inc. v. Gammex Inc., 216 F.3d 441, 453 (5th Cir.2000))). In light of the record before us, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred. The district court was persuaded that the evidence as a whole—including Williams’s performance in the classroom and on standardized achievement tests, his writing ability, and the opinions of numerous witnesses who did not believe that Williams was retarded—was inconsistent with a finding of mental retardation. Nothing in the Briseno standard compels a blind adherence to IQ. In fact, Briseno itself recognizes that IQ alone is not determinative of mental retardation. Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 7 n.24 (quoting DSM-IV at 39). The mental retardation standard is designed to be flexible: “sometimes a person whose IQ has tested above 70 may be diagnosed as mentally retarded while a person whose IQ tests below 70 may not be mentally retarded.” Id. Furthermore, we persist when questions became more difficult. 20 No. 07-70006 have previously observed that there is “no binding authority that requires an IQ test specifically, that is, entirely alone, at the core, or as any singular threshold, to provide the basis for a finding of mental retardation.” Morris v. Dretke, 413 F.3d 484, 497 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Williams carries the burden of proving mental retardation, failure to prove the first Briseno prong should end our inquiry. However, because the district court considered this issue to be a “close call,” we continue to the second prong to illustrate that, even if Williams has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, he did not exhibit the type of adaptive deficits required under Briseno.10 iii. Related adaptive limitations a. Applicable law The AAMR definition of mental retardation requires a showing of “related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at 309 n.3. The Texas PMRA similarly requires deficits in “adaptive behavior,” meaning “the effectiveness with or degree to which a person meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of the person’s age and cultural group.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 591.003(1). Briseno noted that “[t]he adaptive behavior criteria are exceedingly subjective, and undoubtedly experts will be found to offer opinions on both sides of the issue in most cases.” 135 S.W.3d at 8. Therefore, the TCCA offered a list 10 We do not address the third prong—onset before age eighteen—because Williams took an IQ test at age 16. If we were to find that test determinative, the third Briseno prong would be satisfied. However, because we conclude that the district court did not err in discrediting that and other IQ tests, Williams’s intelligence is not subaverage and we need not address the issue of onset. 21 No. 07-70006 of other “evidentiary factors” to consider in deciding whether evidence suggests mental retardation or a personality disorder: • Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage—his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities—think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination? • Has the person formulated plans and carried them through or is his conduct impulsive? • Does his conduct show leadership or does it show that he is led around by others? • Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable? • Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject? • Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others’ interests? • Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose? Id. at 8-9. b. Magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendations The district court considered evidence of Williams’s bizarre and antisocial conduct. The court also noted Dr. Garnett’s testimony that Williams showed adaptive limitations in the areas of self care, home living, social and personal skills, work, and leisure. However, the court was not persuaded that these limitations were caused by mental retardation. Dr. Garnett conceded, in cross examination, that those deficits could all be explained by other diagnoses such as conduct disorder, oppositional defiance, or learning disabilities. The district court found more credible Dr. Allen’s testimony that Williams’s strange behavior was due to anti-social personality rather than mental retardation. In contrast to Dr. Garnett’s subjective evaluation, the state’s expert, Dr. Allen, administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavior test to measure Williams’s 22 No. 07-70006 adaptive deficits. The only area where Williams showed an adaptive deficit was in socialization, and that deficit could be explained by antisocial personality disorder rather than mental retardation. Further, the district court noted Williams’s substantial adaptive strengths, finding that Williams rented an apartment, bought at least two vehicles, washed his clothes, and could conform his conduct to social norms when he wanted. Although some witnesses reported that Williams did not understand the rules of sports and games, other testimony suggested that Williams did play sports and understand the rules. Ultimately, the court concluded that “Williams’s eccentric behaviors are just as easily seen as attention-getting behaviors as they are evidence of mental retardation.” If Williams does suffer from some adaptive deficits, the court concluded, they are not “significant.” c. Analysis As in our analysis of the first Briseno prong, we give great weight to the district court’s credibility determinations.11 At the evidentiary hearing, the court heard from many witnesses who testified about Williams’s abilities throughout his life, including numerous examples of bad behavior and antisocial conduct. Although Williams’s expert, Dr. Garnett, testified that this evidence supports a finding of mental retardation, the state’s expert, Dr. Allen, gave compelling 11 Indeed, as we have noted previously, the subjectiveness of evaluating the district court’s analysis of the “adaptive deficits” prong counsels significant deference: As the CCA has noted, the adaptive behavior criteria are “exceedingly subjective.” The district courts each held extensive evidentiary hearings, which included testimony on this issue from, among other witnesses, [the petitioner’s] family members and teachers, and multiple experts. That this case presents, in Judge Hanen’s words, “a close call” strengthens the need to be mindful of the district court’s conclusions. Judge Hanen, having actually presided over the second evidentiary hearing, is in a better position than this court to judge and weigh the credibility of the witnesses who testified on the extent, duration, and causes of [the petitioner’s] adaptive functioning limitations. Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349, 363 (5th Cir. 2007) (footnotes omitted). 23 No. 07-70006 testimony attributing Williams’s bizarre behavior to diagnoses other than mental retardation. Before this court, Williams does little more than recount testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing, charging that the district court discounted evidence of his “repeated failures to live a normal life,” including “his inability to keep a job, maintain a car, live on his own, have a girlfriend, or maintain his hygiene.” Williams argues that witnesses from each stage of his life testified that he “could not live like a normal person for his age.” Williams’s brief includes a two-and-a-half-page chart summarizing the testimony of various witnesses about his adaptive deficits. However, the only specific point of error Williams raises is an argument that the district court should not have considered adaptive strengths in evaluating Williams’s adaptive deficits. The experts spent some time battling over this point in the evidentiary hearing. Dr. Garnett testified that the AAMR’s standard is a deficits-only model. In other words, a person’s strengths should be ignored in making a diagnosis. Dr. Garnett cited the DSM manual’s “exclusionary clause,” which dictates that once a subject meets minimum thresholds for deficits, the diagnosis of mental retardation holds regardless of other adaptive strengths. Dr. Garnett did concede, however, that strengths in specific adaptive areas should be balanced against deficits in those areas to determine if the deficits are “significant.” Dr. Allen criticized the deficits-only model for its tendency to produce confirmation bias. As he explained, if an expert evaluates a subject with a borderline IQ, the deficits-only model encourages the expert to look for deficits which tend to confirm a diagnosis of mental retardation while ignoring contrary evidence. Thus, the deficits-only model is too likely to confirm a suspected diagnosis of mental retardation if evidence of adaptive abilities is not 24 No. 07-70006 considered.12 To be sure, the Briseno definition does reference adaptive limitations without reference to strengths. However, the standard also requires that these limitations in certain adaptive categories be “significant.” As Williams’s expert testified, weighing strengths against weaknesses is a crucial part of determining whether purported adaptive limitations are “significant.” Furthermore, this court has previously held that courts are not barred from considering adaptive strengths in evaluating mental retardation claims. See Clark v. Quarterman, 457 F.3d 441, 447 (5th Cir. 2006). In Clark, the petitioner argued that evidence of his adaptive skills did not support the state court’s determination that he was not mentally retarded because this was evidence of strengths and not limitations. Id. The court reasoned that [t]his is incorrect—evidence of a strength in a particular area of adaptive functioning necessarily shows that the defendant does not have a weakness in that particular area. Even if, as [the petitioner] argues, adaptive limitations rather than strengths often define mental retardation, the evidence in this case shows primarily adaptive strengths and does not show limitation in any significant area. The evidence in this case showed that prior to being incarcerated, [the petitioner] functioned normally across a broad range of adaptive behaviors. Id. Similarly, the district court in the instant case concluded that the evidence showed significant adaptive strengths—especially in the area of functional academics—and adaptive weaknesses that were either insignificant or could be more credibly explained by other behavioral diagnoses. To find clear error, we must do more than merely disagree with the district court’s conclusion. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74. We therefore find no clear error in the district court’s crediting the state’s expert testimony over Williams’s expert on the issue 12 Dr. Allen explained that the best scientific method is to begin with the “null hypothesis”—in this case, a diagnosis of no mental retardation—then assess the evidence to determine whether it meets the burden of proving mental retardation. 25 No. 07-70006 of adaptive deficits. Williams exhibited numerous adaptive strengths to support a conclusion that he lacked significant adaptive weaknesses. Williams made long-distance calls with calling cards, bought plane tickets unassisted, traveled out of state, rented an apartment, applied for unemployment benefits on his own, and washed his own clothes. Although the magistrate judge observed that several witnesses noted Williams’s “various odd behaviors,” the court concluded that Williams “could conform his conduct to expected social norms when he wanted to” and that his “eccentric behaviors are just as easily seen as attentiongetting behaviors as they are evidence of mental retardation.” We find that the district court did not clearly err in reaching that conclusion.