Opinion ID: 171499
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incompetence due to age

Text: Vigil argues that we should equitably toll the one-year limitation period because he was only sixteen years old when he was convicted of his crimes, and did not mature at the normal rate because he was immediately held in solitary confinement (Doc. 3 (habeas petition) at 9-10; Application at 4). Vigil relies heavily on Tate v. State, 864 So. 2d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). In Tate, the Florida Court of Appeals held that due process required a competency evaluation, -7- by the trial court, for a twelve-year-old murder defendant with an IQ of approximately ninety. Id. at 48. Vigil has failed to demonstrate, however, that he was or is in any way similar to a twelve-year-old with an IQ of 90. In addition, nothing in the record constitutes such a “factual showing of mental incapacity,” Lawrence, 127 S. Ct. at 1086. Furthermore, for the purposes of acting on one’s own behalf in a court of law, the age of majority in Colorado is eighteen. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-22101 (West 2008). Colorado’s Juvenile Justice System statute thus defines “child” as “a person under eighteen years of age.” Id. § 19-1-103(18). When Vigil’s conviction became final and the § 2241(d) limitation period began to run on March 27, 2000, he was nineteen years old. Therefore, his argument in this regard lacks merit.