Opinion ID: 4556153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶23 Supreme Court jurisprudence instructs that states have the “task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences” upon the intellectually disabled. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 (quoting Ford, 477 U.S. at 405, 416–17). Although states have “some flexibility,” Moore I, 137 S. Ct. at 1052, in enforcing this constitutional restriction, the adjudication of intellectual disability should be “informed by the views of medical experts,” Hall, 572 U.S. at 721. ¶24 Arizona’s statutory framework for adjudicating intellectual disability complies with the constitutional requirements announced in Moore I and Moore II. However, because the trial court did not conduct an overall assessment of Altamirano’s ability to meet society’s expectations of him as required by § 13-753(K)(1), we vacate the court of appeals’ decision order, reverse the trial court, and remand for a new intellectual disability determination using the standard set forth in this opinion. 10