Opinion ID: 78421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Carroll's Successive 3.850 Motion

Text: On April 22, 2003, Carroll filed a successive 3.850 motion, raising two new claims based upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). With respect to his Atkins claim, Carroll argued he was exempt from execution under the Eighth Amendment because he was borderline mentally retarded and/or suffering from such severe brain damage and mental limitations that death could never be an appropriate punishment. Judge Perry, who had presided over Carroll's trial in 1992 and his initial post-conviction proceedings in 1997, once again was assigned the case and, on June 12, 2003, held a Huff hearing on Carroll's new claims. At that hearing, Carroll's collateral counsel maintained Carroll had made a prima facie showing of mental retardation to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Atkins: It's our contention he has substantial limitation of present functioning. IQ range from 75 to 81. Postconviction and trial record demonstrate he also suffers from other mental illness, comparative reasoning. As support for this argument, collateral counsel relied solely on existing evidence in the record and did not proffer any additional evidence regarding Carroll's mental retardation. [6] Specifically, collateral counsel cited Dr. Crown's testimony regarding Carroll's IQ and intellectual ability from the evidentiary hearing on Carroll's initial 3.850 motion. He also pointed to evidence in the record pertaining to Carroll's reading, spelling, and arithmetic abilities as well as his poor performance in school, contending Carroll's learning disabilities evidenced a significant limitation in adaptive functioning. Collateral counsel further argued Carroll had exhibited problems with self-direction and self-care during his life. He concluded by noting Carroll's deficits in adaptive behavior manifested by age eighteen. On January 12, 2004, the trial court summarily denied Carroll's successive 3.850 motion. With respect to Carroll's Atkins claim, Judge Perry considered the evidence presented at trial, the prior evidentiary hearing on Carroll's first 3.850 motion, and the Huff hearing on his successive motionall proceedings over which Judge Perry had presidedand concluded Defendant does not meet the definition of mentally retarded as set forth in Atkins because his IQ score is and was over 75. He also found the record showed no significant limitation in Carroll's adaptive skills. Accordingly, Judge Perry denied Carroll's mental retardation claim. Furthermore, he declined to apply Atkins to the mentally ill, noting the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the execution of insane prisoners and there are already numerous safeguards in place for the protection of the truly insane. On May 12, 2005, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed without an opinion. Carroll v. State, 904 So.2d 430 (Fla.2005) ( Carroll III ).