Opinion ID: 3043524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2011 Amended Petition

Text: Smith’s amended § 2254 petition alleged, inter alia, that he is intellectually disabled and his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Smith requested discovery and an evidentiary hearing. 11 In 2009, the Alabama appellate court also denied Smith’s application for rehearing. 12 The Alabama Supreme Court initially granted the writ as to Smith’s ineffective-counsel claims, but it denied the writ as to all other claims. Following more briefing, the Alabama Supreme Court quashed the writ. 21 Case: 14-10721 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 22 of 39 In the district court, Smith argued that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision—rejecting his Atkins claim—was both an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and an unreasonable determination of the facts, see id. § 2254(d)(2).