Opinion ID: 1697230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the sentence of death must be vacated because smith is mentally retarded.

Text: ¶ 93. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2252, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), the United States Supreme Court concluded that death is not suitable punishment for mentally retarded criminals, and on June 19, 2003, Smith's counsel timely filed an amendment to the Petition for Post Conviction Relief then pending before this Court, in order to crystallize the claim that Smith is retarded and should not be executed. The amendment asked this Court to vacate the death sentence, or in the alternative to remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation. The State correctly points out that Smith waited almost a year after the Atkins decision, some ten months after the State's response and some seven months after his rebuttal brief, to raise the mental retardation issue and asserts that this was done for no other purpose than delay. However, it was filed one day before the one year statute of limitations under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) expired, and due to the gravity of the retardation issue, we have granted permission to file this amendment of issue XVIII to the pending claims. ¶ 94. Smith's amendment incorporated by reference the arguments which have been thoroughly discussed in Issue IV, supra, in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel in presenting mitigation evidence at the sentencing phase. Smith has offered nothing new here, except to speak in terms of mental retardation in light of Atkins. The underlying data is the same. Nothing new has been added in the form of affidavits, examinations, or other potential evidence of mental retardation. ¶ 95. On direct appeal, based on that mitigation evidence presented at the sentencing phase, this Court held: [T]here is no evidence that Clyde suffered from any mental illness or retardation. Smith v. State, 729 So.2d at 1220. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court held that mentally retarded criminals could not be put to death, and left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242. To that end, this Court today has set forth, in Chase v. State, 873 So.2d 1013, 2004 WL 1118688 (Miss.2004), the tests, standards, and procedures to be followed in determining the issue of mental retardation. ¶ 96. Notwithstanding the dearth of evidence which is before this Court regarding Smith's claim of mental retardation, we determine that under Atkins and Chase, we cannot constitutionally deny him the opportunity to present the issue of his possible mental retardation to the trial court. It is at the trial court that all the arguments presented by the State as well as those of Smith shall be heard and be weighed in accord with Chase, and a final determination made as to whether Smith is mentally retarded and, thus, ineligible for the death penalty.