Opinion ID: 2544415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court Determination of Mental Retardation Status

Text: Hodges challenges the trial court's determination that he is not mentally retarded and that he is thus eligible for the death penalty. The Florida Legislature enacted section 921.137 in 2001. It exempts the mentally retarded from the death penalty and establishes a method for determining whether capital defendants are mentally retarded. Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d 503, 509 (Fla.2008). [This Court] adopted rule 3.203 in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which held it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. Phillips, 984 So.2d at 509 (citations omitted). The substantially similar statute and rule require the following: [A] defendant must prove mental retardation by demonstrating: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior; and (3) manifestation of the condition before age eighteen. See § 921.137(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.203(b). Nixon, 2 So.3d at 141; see also Phillips, 984 So.2d at 509. The defendant has the burden to prove that he is mentally retarded by clear and convincing evidence. § 921.137(4), Fla. Stat. (2005). If a defendant fails to prove any of the three components, he or she will not be found to be mentally retarded. Nixon, 2 So.3d at 142. When reviewing mental retardation determinations, we must decide whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We do not `reweigh the evidence or second-guess the circuit court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses.' Nixon, 2 So.3d at 141 (citation omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 959 So.2d 146, 149 (Fla.2007)). [T]he concern on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the [decision]. Brown, 959 So.2d at 149 (alteration in original) (quoting Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981)); see also Nixon, 2 So.3d at 144. To the extent that the trial court's decision concerns questions of law, the Court applies a de novo standard of review. Cherry v. State, 959 So.2d 702, 712 (Fla.2007).
Prior to trial, Hodges filed a motion with the trial court to bar imposition of the death penalty, claiming that he was mentally retarded as defined by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203(b) and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The trial court then held a series of mental retardation hearings. We highlight the key testimony here. Dr. Brett Turner, a psychologist retained by the defense, testified regarding his evaluations of Hodges. On the WAIS-III, Hodges received a full-scale IQ score of 62. Hodges' school records indicated that Hodges was given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children in the fifth and seventh grades, with resulting scores of 66, and that Hodges quit school in the eighth grade. Based solely upon Hodges' school records, Dr. Turner ultimately opined that Hodges was mentally retarded. Similarly, Dr. Lawrence Gilgun, a psychologist appointed by the trial court, testified regarding his evaluations of Hodges. On the WAIS-III, Hodges received a full-scale IQ score of 69, and Hodges performed very poorly on a wide-range achievement test. Dr. Gilgun also opined that Hodges was mentally retarded. After the initial testimonies of Drs. Turner and Gilgun, the State produced approximately thirty-seven letters written to Officer Jennifer Luke that the State claimed were written by Hodges. Hodges initially indicated that he wrote the letters and copied many of the phrases from books. Later, though, Hodges stated that other inmates wrote the letters and that he then copied them in his own writing. After reviewing the letters, Dr. Turner stated that even if Hodges wrote them, his opinion would not likely have been different. Dr. Gilgun stated that the abstraction, language skills, and poetic expression in the letters went beyond what [he] would expect ... a mentally retarded person to author and that the plot thickens because the defendant says he didn't really write the letters ... and that one of his buddies at the jail actually composed it, and all he did was either copy it or sign his name to it. A few months later, Dr. Gilgun filed with the trial court another psychological evaluation of Hodges that provided results of several additional tests that he administered to Hodges. On an additional intelligence test, Hodges obtained a score consistent with the prior tests, and on an achievement test, Hodges scored on second- and fourth-grade levels. On the Vineland Scales testwith Hodges' aunt Rosia Ptomey and cousin Willie Mae Ross as the respondentsHodges ranked in the second percentile or lower in each of the following categories: communication; daily living skills; socialization; and adaptive behavior composite. Two malingering tests indicated that Hodges was not malingering. At a later hearing, Dr. Gilgun testified that his opinion had changedthat Hodges was not mentally retarded because although Hodges' scores on standardized intelligence tests fell in the mentally retarded range, Hodges did not exhibit deficiencies in adaptive functioning. Regarding the adaptive-functioning prong of the mental retardation test, Dr. Gilgun stated: It is with a lot less certainty [than the first prong] because ... there seems to be a number of indicators that he is functioning above the retarded range. There's some indicators that even indicate he's functioning in the average range. Dr. Gilgun explained that he recently learned that Tamara Wolfe had lived with Hodges for five months and Bonnie Chandler had lived with Hodges for five years. [2] Gilgun gave both women the Vineland Scales test, and there was a discrepancy between the results produced from the Vineland Scales tests given to Ross and Ptomey and Wolfe and Chandler. Dr. Gilgun noted, So two women [Wolfe and Chandler] who have had pretty extensive contact with him saw things quite a bit differently. Dr. Gilgun explained: Wolfe saw Hodges as adaptive and as having adaptive-functioning scores in the low average, average to high average range. In terms of daily living skills, [Wolfe] saw [Hodges] functioning in the high average range. In terms of socialization, Wolfe saw him functioning in the average range. Chandler saw him as functioning and communicat[ing] in the moderately retarded range, with [v]ery poor communication abilities. She [s]aw him functioning in the average range in daily living skills and saw him functioning in the mildly retarded range in terms of socialization. Wolfe and Chandler indicated that Hodges had the ability to write letters with ten sentences on his own, with very few mistakes in spelling and grammar. Dr. Brett Turner again testified and opined that he believed that Hodges' IQ score of 62 on the WAIS-III was accurate and that based on his review of Hodges' medical, vocational, and academic records, and further psychological testing, Hodges' abilities and experiences were not contradictory to such an IQ score. Dr. Turner explained that he reviewed records, including the letters that Hodges allegedly wrote in prison and Hodges' recorded phone conversations. Dr. Turner only interviewed Hodges and Hodges' former employer, Ben Thomas, but Dr. Turner agreed that Hodges was both educable and capable of learning basic skills. Dr. Turner stated that Hodges did not evidence any significant word-finding difficulty; his thoughts were organized appropriately; there was no indication of any delusional thinking or perceptional distortions; there was no evidence of psychosis; and Hodges denied suicidal tendencies. Dr. Turner opined that Hodges met the criteria for mild mental retardation. Regarding adaptive behavior specifically, Dr. Turner stated: [Y]ou have to remember adaptive functioning is a psychological term that is used to describe how a person copes in life, and it includes intelligence, it includes academic functioning, it includes vocational functioning. So again, it's kind of hard to separate that out as you put it, a two-prong thing. They're not really separate issues. Jennifer Luke of the Cincinnati Police Department homicide unit testified that when evidence led to Hodges after the March 2003 murder of Lavern Jansen, Luke initiated contact with Hodges, and Hodges responded. Luke and Hodges wrote each other frequently, and eventually a phone was installed in Luke's home so that Hodges could call her. Luke and Hodges spoke by phone quite a bit, and the calls were recorded. Luke and Hodges spoke mostly about personal issues, including [their] feelings for each other, things he was feeling inside, of being locked up, how nobody but [Luke] was contacting him. They also spoke about trouble they experienced in the past. In her letters, Luke asked questions, and Hodges answered either by letter or a phone call. Hodges asked Luke about her children and vacations and asked Luke to get him prescription reading glasses, for which he provided his prescription. Hodges also asked Luke to forward him money but to address it to another particular inmate because he would have to pay a fee on the money if she sent it directly to him. In one letter, Hodges asked Luke to send him a radio and included an order form upon which he had circled the desired radio and calculated the cost of the radio. After Luke sent thirty dollars, Hodges stated to her that he needed seventeen dollars more in order to purchase the radio. Hodges indicated on the phone to Luke that he had read 400 pages of the Bible, and he sent Luke some verses to read. He said, I'll read the verses, you read the verses, and then we'll discuss them over the phone. Bonnie Chandler testified that for approximately two yearsaround 1996 to 1998Hodges lived with her. Hodges was able to take care of himself in terms of hygiene and dress. He was particular about the way he look[ed]. He dresse[d] well. He manicure[d] himself, cut[] his hair, ... he looked very nice. Hodges picked out his own clothes and wore mostly dressy clothes that always matched. Chandler typically paid for Hodges' clothes, but sometimes Hodges handled the transaction. Chandler explained: He has taken the credit card and paid for purchases on his own, signed the credit card receipts. He's done things on his own where I haven't been there, sent him to the store for stuff and he's taken money and brought back change. Hodges also washed and ironed his own clothes and sometimes washed Chandler's clothes. Hodges cooked dinner every once in a while and was able to do so without Chandler's help. Chandler often went to the library and brought back children's books, and to the best of her knowledge, Hodges was able to read the books to Chandler's young daughter. Of the five years that Chandler knew Hodges, Hodges had a job for approximately six months. Sometimes Chandler gave Hodges money when he was not working. At other times, Hodges asked Chandler's family members for money and pawned items from Chandler's home. After Hodges went back to prison, Chandler learned that Hodges stole a VCR and rings from Chandler's father. Chandler found the pawn slips for the items with Hodges' handwriting on them. Hodges also had a driver's license for a period of time and drove Chandler's car. Chandler and Hodges traveled to Pensacola once and Alabama three times. Hodges drove part of the way and was able to drive without assistance with road signs. Chandler received letters from Hodges when Hodges went back to prison. The letters included things copied from poems or songs and only ... bits and parts would be ... his own thoughts. To the best of Chandler's knowledge, Hodges also wrote letters to his mother before she died. Tamara Wolfe testified that she too had lived with Hodges. Both Hodges and Wolfe got jobs at the Kenwood Mall working on a night-shift cleaning crew. When the supervisor left for the night, Hodges was in charge of all seven employees. Hodges would [m]ake sure that we did our job, that if we needed anything, our supplies or cleaning supplies for our carts or anything, we would get a hold of [Hodges]. He would just go behind us, you know, make sure that maybe all the trash cans was emptied, the glass windows was wiped downs, the floor was clean, the bathrooms was clean, toilet paper was filled, paper towels. When a cleaning-crew employee did not do what he or she was supposed to do, Hodges wrote down what the employee failed to do. Wolfe and Hodges split bills evenly. Typically Hodges gave Wolfe his part of the money, and Wolfe sent the money to pay the bills. Wolfe typically cooked, and Hodges washed the dishes. Sometimes, though, Hodges cooked. Hodges had good hygiene and ironed his clothes; was able to grocery shop and do other types of shopping; and was able to make the financial transactions and ensure that he received the correct change. Hodges went to the food-stamp office and filled out the necessary paperwork by himself, and he then received food stamps. Hodges was on parole and went to his parole appointments as scheduled. He took the bus to get to those appointments and was always early. Wolfe and Hodges traveled from Cincinnati to Alabama by Greyhound bus, and Hodges chose the appropriate tickets for the trip and ensured that they were on the correct bus when they had to transfer buses. Once while on a bus, Hodges was reading. [H]e found [the article] interesting and read [Wolfe] probably about a paragraph, two paragraphs out of it. Hodges wrote Wolfe a letter when she left asking [her] to stay and telling [her] [they] could work it out and included his family members' phone numbers and addresses. Anthony Joseph, Hodges' former Ohio parole officer, testified that Hodges arrived on time for appointments, provided his paycheck stubs as required, and did not have difficulty understanding Joseph. While in an Ohio prison, Hodges was enrolled in a pre-GED class, and an evaluation form noted that Inmate Hodges is progressing in all academic areas. Ben Thomas testified that Hodges worked for Thomas's small masonry business in Ohio. Hodges was a laborer and would mix mortar, cut out brick, water proof, just general labor work. Hodges mixed the mortar with the appropriate amount of sand according to the given recipe. Hodges sometimes drove the company truck to pick up lunch or supplies, likely with a mortar mixer, ladders, or a saw on the back of the truck. In order to pay for gasoline, Thomas would give Hodges a credit card, and Hodges would return with it. When Thomas asked Hodges to perform a new job, he gave Hodges instructions, but Thomas did not recall having to repeat the instructions in order for Hodges to follow them. Hodges also used hydraulic lifts, which lift a person between forty to eighty feet off the ground, and he used gas and electric saws and masonry drills. During the time that Hodges was back in prison, Hodges wrote Thomas a letter asking for a job, which was properly addressed to Thomas's home. Frank Fillingim, the ECSO investigating officer in Belanger's death, testified that he retrieved letters from Marie Fifield, a friend of Hodges. Fifield indicated to Fillingim that Hodges had written her approximately eighty letters since Hodges had been in jail. Some of the letters were cards with illustrations and captions. Fillingim stated: I have to assume that [the illustrations and captions were] drawn by Mr. Hodges ... [b]ecause there are so many pictures. If you had someone else doing it, he kept someone busy full-time, sir. He did trace some. He did some tracing. Fillingim testified that the letters show that [Hodges] knows how to write a letter, knows how to draw a picture and knows how to paste pictures to cards and to rewrite captions of cartoons. Fillingim also testified about Hodges' ability to formulate and execute plans. He stated that Hodges lied to Fifield by telling her that his niece Cora was his daughter and had someone impersonate Cora on a three-way call with Fifield. Fillingim opined, It's an excellent con job to be able to set it up to try to impress this lady. It enabled Hodges to look like [he was] a good, strong family man. And regarding Belanger's murder, Fillingim opined: The fact of the matter is that someone came in, in broad daylight in the morning and was able to entice her to open the door ... and then took her out at the door, locked the door and moved in. I think that's a plan. Larry Ronell Salter, formerly incarcerated with Hodges, testified that he saw Hodges write letters to their mutual friend Fifield. Sometimes Hodges included poems, and sometimes Salter gave Hodges poems from cards that he received. Salter stated that Hodges read the cards himself and that if Hodges read the poem and wanted to use it, Hodges would copy the context of the poem into his letters. When asked whether Salter ever saw anyone else write things out for Hodges, Salter indicated, He would just sit at his desk and write out of his head. Salter explained that for a while Salter would fill in the captions in the small box in the cartoon because Hodges could not see in the box to write. Salter also showed Hodges how to use a newspaper to create an image on a letter, and Hodges then put such images on the letters and cards he wrote to Fifield. Salter saw Hodges do things such as glue pictures and phrases to the cards. Sometimes [Salter] would draw a little something for [Hodges]. Salter also testified that on one occasion, Salter, Hodges, and another inmate named Keith were all in Salter's cell. Keith was trying to avoid his charges, and Hodges told Keith what to say to the doctor in order to get to Chattahoochee. Salter explained: [Hodges] said as long as you tell the psych that you had mental problems before, like in going to school or whatever, this, that and the other, that there's a test that he's going to give you or something that you've got to take. If you fail this test or do this test like this, or however he was telling him, then he can get him off, you know what I mean. He said that that's what he was going to do if they didn't disregard the death penalty on him in this case. Breedlove, Hodges' former cell mate, testified that he saw Hodges write letters to Fifield [j]ust about all day every day. [Hodges] wrote free hand, and Breedlove never saw people write anything out for Hodges to copy. Hodges read the Bible, Chicken Soup for a Prisoner's Soul, the newspaper, horoscopes, and another book the name of which Breedlove had forgotten. Breedlove stated, He used to read stuff out of and write down on paper what it said, including poems, and use those things in his letters. Hodges read the Bible to Breedlove, and the two men had real educated conversations. Hodges gave a lengthy testimony, some of which is highlighted here. Hodges testified that he was in special education classes in school and that there was a history of mental illness in his family. Hodges denied that he was the supervisor of the cleaning crew but admitted to telling others that he was. Hodges stated that he simply ma[d]e sure that certain spots were clean and noticed whether anyone left early to cheat on their time sheets. Regarding his job in the masonry business, Hodges stated that he was able to remember lunch orders for his coworkers because [the order] was always about the same, 3 hamburgers, fry and Coke. When asked whether he ever used a backhoe, Hodges stated that he did mix dirt with a backhoe but that you didn't have no special license to do it. Everybody there did it, you know. Hodges denied ever using a drill. Hodges stated that he had been in and out of jail since he was seventeen or eighteen years old. When asked about the letters he wrote while incarcerated and how those letters came to be in [his] handwriting, Hodges stated: Well I mostly had people mostly wrote them and I rewrote them. You know, like I would get a letter from somebody and they would read it and you know they would answer it back. They will write it out, then they will read it to me. And if I like it, I will rewrite it and send to that person. Hodges stated: [T]he letters I could write I couldn't say what I wanted to say because I couldn't spell and read them that good. Hodges identified two books as belonging to him and stated that he used them to assist in writing letters. Hodges stated that he had someone read Luke's letters to him and that he was able to read [s]ome of [them]. The following exchange occurred regarding the letters in evidence. Q. Now you are trying to tell us that every time you wrote a letter somebody was sitting there with you writing it out and telling you what to say, correct? A. I am not tryingthat what I am telling you. Yes. .... Q. Okay. You are saying that somebody sat there day in and day out and basically wrote out everything that's in that 10, 12-inch stack of letters? A. Yeah, people help me. .... Q. Who else [helped you write the letters]? Anyone other than Salter, Breedlove and the other person you first said, Mr. Grimmons? A. There's a whole lot of people. Q. Tell me their names. A. I don't know them by name. Hodges admitted that many letters to Fifield were conversational as opposed to poetic. He also stated that he sent cards to Fifield and that other people would help him paste poems and horoscopes into the cards. Hodges explained that he used several different names and addresses in the return address because he stopped hearing from Fifield and felt that the jail was holding his letters. He thought that maybe the mail would be sent out if it had another inmate's name on it. In the letters, Hodges indicated that Fifield should write him back under another inmate's name. Regarding driving, Hodges stated that he did not get a driver's license when he became old enough because [he] couldn't read and write. Like I can't now really. In Ohio, he passed the oral test. Regarding his traveling with Wolfe, Hodges stated that Wolfe planned the trip and that [f]rom Ohio to Alabama, you know, I wouldn't have to get off but one road.... It run me all the way to my house. Hodges stated that he never wrote a letter to Wolfe but that he might have left a note and that he wrote Chandler while he was in jail in Cincinnati. When questioned about his mention of an ex-wife in his letters to Fifield, Hodges stated: I would say [Chandler] was, you know, because we was consideredwhen she was coming to visit me in the penitentiary common law marriage. Hodges denied having ever read to Wolfe on the bus as Wolfe testified. When asked whether he read books to Chandler's children, Hodges replied: Her 3-year-old had little books I would read what I could out of that to her. You know, I could read a little bit, but not no whole lot. Ultimately, the trial court denied Hodges' motion, determining that Hodges had not proven each element of the three-pronged mental retardation test. The trial court concluded that Hodges had established the intellectual-functioning prong of the mental retardation test by clear and convincing evidence but that the evidence regarding the adaptive-functioning prong was in clear contrast. The trial court concluded that rather than clearly and convincingly showing deficits in adaptive functioning, the totality of the evidence established that Hodges had virtually no deficits in adaptive behavior. The trial court explained that Hodges' abilities to sustain necessary activities of daily living such that he can function independently in the community [were] not limited and that he was capable socially, economically, and developmentally to function without significant assistance from others. Given its conclusion that Hodges failed to establish the adaptive-functioning prong of the mental retardation standard, the trial court did not address the third prong onset before age eighteen. The trial court made extensive findings, which we address as necessary below.
On appeal, Hodges only challenges the trial court's finding that the totality of the evidence established that Hodges did not experience concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior. Therefore, we address only that prong of the mental retardation standard. We conclude that the trial court did not err. In Florida, defendants claiming mental retardation are required to show that their low IQ is accompanied by deficits in adaptive behavior. Phillips, 984 So.2d at 511; see also Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1266 (Fla.2005) ([L]ow IQ does not mean mental retardation. For a valid diagnosis of mental retardation... there must also be deficits in the defendant's adaptive functioning.) (quoting trial court's order). Adaptive functioning refers to how effectively individuals cope with common life demands and `how well they meet the standards of personal independence expected of someone in their particular age group, sociocultural background, and community setting.' Phillips, 984 So.2d at 511 (quoting Rodriguez, 919 So.2d at 1266 n. 8). To be diagnosed as mentally retarded, Hodges must show significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, and work. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. 2242. Moreover, subaverage intellectual functioning must exist at the same time as the adaptive deficits, and there must be current adaptive deficits. Jones v. State, 966 So.2d 319, 326 (Fla.2007). We reject Hodges' argument that the trial court erred in determining that he did not suffer from deficits in adaptive functioning. In Phillips, which involved substantially similar factual findings, we held that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that Phillips did not suffer from deficiencies in adaptive functioning. In that case, the evidence established that Phillips was able to support himself and his daily behavior: Phillips supported himself. He worked as short-order cook, a garbage collector, and a dishwasher. The mental health experts generally agreed that Phillips possessed job skills that people with mental retardation lacked. Specifically, the defense's expert admitted that Phillips's position as a short-order cook was an unusually high level job for someone who has mental retardation. Phillips also functioned well at home. He resided with his mother. According to her, he paid most of the bills and did the majority of the household chores. Phillips was also described as a great son, brother, and uncle. Phillips purchased a new car for his mother and a typewriter for his sister. He spent a lot of time with his nieces and nephews, and was real good with them. Phillips often kept the children overnight, took them for ice cream, and would give them rides when needed. In addition to driving, Phillips cooked and went grocery shopping, skills that are indicative of the ability to cope with life's common demands. Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d at 511. Moreover, the planning of the murder and cover-up and Phillips' actions during the murder itself were inconsistent with a finding that Phillips suffers from mental retardation. The Court explained: To commit the crime, Phillips, having discovered that his parole officer was generally the last to leave the office, lay in wait behind dumpsters outside of the building. When the parole officer emerged and there were no witnesses present, Phillips unloaded his gun into the officer. He reloaded the gun and shot the parole officer three more times. Phillips then retrieved the shell casings from the ground, fled the scene, and disposed of the gun. After he was apprehended, officers tried on several occasions to interview Phillips, but he refused to speak. Id. at 512. We ultimately concluded that Phillips's ability to orchestrate and carry out his crimes, his foresight, and his acts of self-preservation indicate that he has the ability to adapt to his surroundings. Id. We then stated: It is clear from the evidence that Phillips does not suffer from adaptive impairments. Aside from personal independence, Phillips has demonstrated that he is healthy, wellnourished and wellgroomed, and exhibits good hygiene. Id. Similarly, in Jones, 966 So.2d at 328, we held that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that Jones did not suffer from deficits in adaptive functioning. Among other things, the Court emphasized that Jones's language skills in writing, speaking, and other intellectual skills are strong in light of his dropping out of school at an early age and that before committing the murders Jones traveled alone, lived in several states, and supported himself through various jobs. Moreover, [Jones] had girlfriends at various times and for several years lived with a `common law wife,' as he correctly termed her. Id. We hold that the trial court's conclusion that Hodges did not suffer from deficits in adaptive functioning is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is in keeping with this Court's precedent. In Hodges' case, several witnesses testified about Hodges' daily living and other capabilities, experts opined about Hodges' adaptive functioning, and the trial court made lengthy findings based on the evidence presented. Evidence showed that like Phillips, Hodges supported himself at times by working labor jobs, such as working for Ben Thomas's masonry business. In that position, Hodges was able to mix mortar with the appropriate amount of sand, cut bricks, drive Thomas's truck, and obtain lunch for the other employees. Hodges used hydraulic lifts, gas and electric saws, masonry drills, and Thomas's credit card. Evidence also showed that Hodges supervised, albeit apparently without an official supervisor title, a night-shift cleaning crew. Also like Phillips, Hodges functioned well at home. Evidence showed that Hodges cleaned up after meals and occasionally cooked, was able to drive, and read books to one girlfriend's young daughter. Hodges dressed well, cut his hair, manicured himself, and washed and ironed his own clothes and sometimes his girlfriend's clothes. Hodges shopped for groceries and other things, made the necessary monetary transactions for the purchases, and ensured that he received the correct change. When Hodges needed money, he even independently applied for food stamps and pawned items for cash. Moreover, regarding the planning of the murder and cover-up as this Court emphasized in Phillips, Hodges not only locked Belanger's door once inside her home, but he seemingly anticipated that others might have a key and therefore pushed a chair against the door to prevent anyone from opening it. Once Belanger's family arrived and began to congregate by the front and back doors, Hodges left through a side window and dropped photographs in an attempt to frame his nephew. Furthermore, as in Jones, Hodges was capable of traveling independently to and from work and appointments with his parole officer and from Ohio to Alabama and Florida. On some long trips, Hodges drove without anyone instructing him on how to get to his destination. On other long trips, Hodges arranged travel by bus, including successfully arranging bus transfers along the way. Moreover, like Jones, Hodges had girlfriends, including both Chandler and Wolfe, with whom he lived for extended time periods, and he referred to Chandler as his common law wife. The abundant evidence regarding Hodges' writing capabilities also supports the trial court's conclusion that Hodges has not shown deficits in adaptive functioning. While there was some question regarding whether Hodges actually wrote the letters submitted into evidence (because Hodges claimed that he was unable to read and write well), various witnesses testified that Hodges was capable of reading and writing. For example, Chandler testified that Hodges read children's books to her young daughter; Wolfe testified that Hodges had once read to her on a bus trip and on another occasion had left her a note; and Salter and Breedlove testified that Hodges wrote multiple letters while incarcerated and read and selected poems that he liked to incorporate in those letters. In addition to generally challenging the trial court's conclusion on his mental retardation status, Hodges presented various arguments attacking Dr. Gilgun's expert opinion, claiming that his opinion was flawed, and arguments challenging the trial court's fact-finding. We reject each argument. In Jones, we determined that the relevant inquiry under the second prong of the mental retardation standard was whether a defendant demonstrated adaptive functioning as an adult, not whether the defendant demonstrated adaptive functioning prior to age eighteen. 966 So.2d at 327. We did not, however, mandate that a defendant's adaptive behavior and IQ be tested at the exact same time. Hodges was an adult during the periods when he interacted with Wolfe and Chandler. Thus, the fact that Wolfe and Chandler had no contact with Hodges for several years prior to the administration of the Vineland Scales tests in 2006 does not render their observations irrelevant. We have also consistently held this Court will not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the circuit court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses. Nixon, 2 So.3d. at 141 (quoting Brown, 959 So.2d at 149). Likewise, [w]ith regard to expert opinion... the court has discretion to accept or reject such testimony. Jones, 966 So.2d at 327; see also Evans v. State, 800 So.2d 182, 188 (Fla.2001) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court's determination of competency made after hearing conflicting expert testimony). Lastly, we address Hodges' argument that the trial court improperly relied upon Hodges' in-court testimony to reach its conclusion that Hodges was not mentally retarded. In Johnson v. State, 442 So.2d 185, 190 (Fla.1983), the defendant took issue with the fact that the trial judge in finding that the[] mitigating circumstances did not apply took into account his `own observations of the Defendant during the trial, as well as his testimony in pretrial proceedings.' Id. This Court held: [T]he judge is not relying on information that is not available to the defendant. Although justice should be blind, judges are not. They may properly notice a defendant's behavior and draw inferences concerning matters such as whether the defendant is capable of appreciating the criminality of his conduct. Id. The Court further explained: It would help if a judge who relies on his personal observations would describe them in detail in order to give a reviewing court a basis for deciding whether his conclusions are correct. However, in this case the trial judge gave sufficient reasons to support his conclusions independent of the personal observations, so we find no error. Id. In Hodges' case, the trial court made lengthy findings in reaching its conclusion that Hodges was not mentally retarded. As part of its findings, the trial court noted Hodges' testimony and demeanor in the courtroom. [Hodges] could follow the track of thinking in questions, clearly respond to the questions, provide additional information if he thought his answers to the specific question was not adequate to get his point across. He very clearly comprehended everything that was going on in this proceeding and behaved in a most appropriate and responsive fashion. We reject Hodges' argument and find that the trial court's findings were in conformity with Johnson. As we stated in Johnson, the trial court in Hodges' case properly notice[d] Hodges' in-court behavior and capabilitiessuch as Hodges' ability to clearly respond to the questions and ability to provide additional information if he thought his answers ... [were] not adequateand then properly describe[d] them in detail. Johnson, 442 So.2d at 190. As discussed previously, based on the evidence presented by both lay and expert witnesses, the trial court went on to make multiple findings regarding Hodges' daily living. These findings were sufficient reasons to support his conclusions independent of the personal observations. Id. at 190. Furthermore, the trial court's reliance upon Hodges' in-court testimony conforms with Johnson in that the trial court did not rely on information that [was] not available to the defendant. Id. Both expert witnesses previously testified that a defendant's ability to communicate is relevant to a mental retardation diagnosis. Specifically, during Dr. Gilgun's testimony regarding administering the Vineland Scales test to Ptomey, Ross, Chandler, and Wolfe, he explained that communication skills is one category assessed by the Vineland Scales test. Although Dr. Turner did not administer the Vineland Scales test to any witnesses, when asked to describe the test, he also stated that one of the categories of the test is communication abilities. Based on the foregoing, Hodges is not entitled to relief. The trial court's determination that Hodges did not suffer from deficits in adaptive functioning is supported by competent, substantial evidence.