Hall v. Quarterman

• Decision Date: 30 June 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06-70041.,06-70041.
• Citation: 534 F.3d 365
• Parties: Michael Wayne HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

534 F.3d 365

Michael Wayne HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-70041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 2008.

David Patrick Sheldon (argued), Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, Washington, DC, Gregory Burke Westfall, Westfall, Platt, Cutrer & Paschall, Fort Worth, TX, for Hall.

Thomas M. Jones (argued), Austin, TX, for Quarterman.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Hall was convicted of capital murder in state court. He sought state and federal habeas relief, requesting in each forum a live evidentiary hearing on his claim of mental retardation. Each court denied his request. We granted a Certificate of Appealability.

I

Michael Wayne Hall was tried in Texas state court for the murder of Amy Robinson and convicted of capital murder by the jury. Although he was convicted prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that the execution of mentally retarded defendants is unconstitutional,¹ there was evidence regarding his mental abilities presented at trial in mitigation. On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the "CCA") affirmed the conviction, rejecting his Penry claim and his claim that the Constitution barred the execution of mentally retarded persons. Hall filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In his state habeas petition, Hall asserted his claim of a constitutional bar to execution of the mentally retarded and requested a "full and fair hearing," urging, "There has never been a fact finding rendered by either the trial court or a jury as to the issue of whether Applicant is, in fact, mentally retarded." While his state habeas claim was pending, the Supreme Court decided Atkins. Hall requested a live hearing on the mental retardation issue, urging, "Because the issue of whether or not Applicant is `mentally retarded' has never been fully and fairly litigated and resolved by a fact-finder, this Court cannot rely solely on ... [its] recollection of the testimony from the trial which was conducted over two (2) years ago. This Court should, at a bare minimum, conduct a live hearing on this matter." Hall also objected to the state court's "conducting a hearing on Applicant's Atkins claim via affidavit rather than via live hearing." Despite Atkins, the trial court conducted a "hearing" by affidavit without awaiting the disposition of Hall's pending certiorari petition, and the CCA, relying on the paper results, denied Hall's state habeas claim.

The Supreme Court granted Hall's petition for certiorari from his direct appeal to the state court, vacating and remanding to the CCA to reconsider its initial affirmance of Hall's conviction in light of Atkins. The CCA, relying on the state habeas and direct appeal records and a "re-review[ ][of] the evidence" from the records, held that Hall was not mentally retarded.² Hall appealed again to the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari, and he then filed a federal habeas petition, again arguing, "Mr. Hall has a right under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to a full and fair hearing in a court of law on the issue of his mental retardation." The federal district court relied on the state record to conclude that Hall was not retarded, and denied Hall's Atkins claim. We granted a COA.

II

In applying the deferential standard under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), we are mindful of the unique facts of this case, in that Atkins was decided after Hall's conviction, and the state's paper hearing on the Atkins mental retardation issue was completed before Texas had defined mental retardation under the Atkins standard. We review the federal district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on the Atkins issue for an abuse of discretion.³

Section 2254(e)(2) of United States Code Title 28 does not constrain the district court's discretion here because Hall diligently developed the factual basis of his claim in state court.⁴ In the state habeas proceedings, Hall consistently raised his claim that he was mentally retarded and that execution of a mentally retarded individual is unconstitutional.⁵ He also provided affidavits of experts, affidavits of former teachers and other individuals who were familiar with Hall's capabilities,⁶ and evidence of mental limitations, such as medical records, grade reports and special education screening results from school, and the results of Hall's examination for competency to stand trial. These were more than adequate to establish a factual basis for his mental retardation claim.

Once a district court determines that a petitioner may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, this is not the end of the inquiry, since "[i]n cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court."⁷ In determining whether to grant a hearing, under Rule 8(a) of the habeas Court Rules "`the judge must review the answer [and] any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings ... to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.'"⁸ And the Supreme Court has held since AEDPA that the court must also "consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief. Because the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate."⁹ And finally, a district court abuses its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing only if the state court failed to provide a full and fair hearing.¹⁰

The facts before us are a core manifestation of a case where the state failed to provide a full and fair hearing and where such a hearing would bring out facts which, if proven true, support habeas relief. Hall alleges that he is mentally retarded under Texas' Atkins test for mental retardation announced in Ex Parte Briseno: under Briseno a defendant must prove that he has "(1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning [`defined as an IQ of about 70 or below']; (2) accompanied by related limitations in adaptive functioning; (3) the onset of which occurs prior to the age of 18."¹¹ Because neither Atkins nor the Briseno test had been established at his original trial, and Briseno was not decided until approximately two years after the state court's paper hearing on mental retardation,¹² upon which the CCA and the district court relied, Hall never had the opportunity to present a full range of evidence on this technical issue.¹³

The federal district court discussed the Briseno factors but did not conduct a hearing, relying instead on the state court's findings of mental retardation — findings that were made prior to the Briseno test. The district court explained, "In his petition, Hall thoroughly reviews the voluminous evidence as to his mental capacity. The state does the same in its response. There is no reason for the court to do so again here."¹⁴ The court examined the paper evidence and held, "Having independently reviewed all of the evidence, the court concludes" that "the state court's finding that Hall is not mentally retarded was not unreasonable."¹⁵

The district court also addressed Hall's claim for a jury determination of mental retardation or, in the alternative, a live hearing. The district court found that Hall "failed to raise this issue in the state proceedings" and that it was procedurally defaulted.¹⁶ This conclusion is incorrect; Hall consistently raised this issue in his state and federal habeas petitions. The district court went on to hold that "[e]ven if not procedurally defaulted, Hall's claim that he was entitled to a jury determination on mental retardation is without substantive merit. Nowhere in Atkins does the Supreme Court hold that a jury determination on this issue is required."¹⁷ This conclusion is correct, but it misses a central element of Hall's claim — namely, that Hall requested a jury trial or at minimum a live hearing.¹⁸

In reviewing the paper evidence, the district court failed to account for several clearly erroneous findings of the CCA which, if addressed in an evidentiary hearing, might have highlighted the unreasonableness of the state court's determination of the facts and entitled Hall to habeas relief. The CCA's habeas determinations rested on the state court's findings from the paper hearing, as the CCA fully adopted those findings.¹⁹ In other words, errors in the state court's factual findings were not corrected when they reached the CCA. In assessing the affidavits of experts, which address Hall's IQ, the state court misread an IQ score of 67 reported in Dr. Church's sworn affidavit, replacing a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, third edition, exam ("WAIS-III") score of 67 with 72. The state's expert, Dr. Price, also erroneously relied on an IQ score of 72 in making his assessment, stating, "[I]f an individual is being assessed for the presence or absence of mental retardation and receives and [sic] IQ score of 72, then his or her actual IQ is 95% likely to fall between 67 and 77-a range of scores that may indicate mild mental retardation or borderline intelligence."²⁰ Relying at least partially on this error, the state trial court concluded that Hall's intelligence level was "either in the borderline range of intellectual functioning or in the upper end of mild mental retardation."²¹ A hearing would clarify whether Dr. Price's conclusions with respect to...