Opinion ID: 1702221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Whether Bishop is mentally retarded as contemplated in the United States Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia and the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.

Text: ¶ 39. Bishop asserts that he is mentally retarded and that under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), his death sentence is barred as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Bishop attaches copies of his school records to his petition, in support of his assertion. He also attaches affidavits of family members to his reply brief. [9] Bishop alleges that he has stated a prima facie claim of mental retardation showing [d]eficiencies in at least two or more adaptive skill areas. Bishop, therefore, claims that he is at least entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The State argues that Bishop is of average intelligence and is clearly not retarded. ¶ 40. This Court finds that the proof in this record does not support Bishop's claim of being mentally retarded as to require remand to the trial court for an Atkins hearing. Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933, 948 (Miss.2004). At the time of Bishop's trial in February, 2000, there existed no constitutional prohibition from executing mentally retarded criminals. A few months after Bishop's direct appeal was decided by this Court, the United States Supreme Court handed down Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which held that execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ¶ 41. This Court recently handed down Chase v. State, 2003-DR-01335, 873 So.2d 1013 (Miss.2004) which defines the criteria and procedure to be used both in applying for, and conducting, a hearing for a determination of mental retardation in accordance with Atkins. Pursuant to Chase, post-conviction relief applicants must provide an affidavit from at least one expert ... who opines, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that: (1) the defendant has a combined Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 75 or below; and (2) in the opinion of the expert, there is a reasonable basis to believe that, upon further testing, the defendant will be found to be mentally retarded, as defined [in the Chase opinion]. Scott , at 948 (quoting Chase, at 1029). ¶ 42. For direct appeals and applications for post-conviction relief which were already pending before this Court at the time Chase was handed down, we have ordered a Chase hearing without requiring an affidavit, where the record before us reflected a qualified opinion that the defendant was mentally retarded. Scott , at 948. However, as stated above, Bishop supports his claim with copies of school records and affidavits of family members, none of which are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Bishop has not established that he is entitled to a Chase hearing. However, should [Bishop] provide the appropriate affidavit which complies with the requirements set forth in Chase as an attachment to an application for post conviction relief, pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1 et seq., he could be entitled to a hearing as provided in Chase . Scott at 948. Since there is insufficient evidence in this record that Bishop is mentally retarded, this issue is without merit.