Panetti v. Quarterman

Decision Date28 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06–6407.,06–6407.
Citation551 U.S. 930,127 S.Ct. 2842,75 BNA USLW 4628,168 L.Ed.2d 662
PartiesScott Louis PANETTI, Petitioner, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court



Petitioner was convicted of capital murder in a Texas state court and sentenced to death despite his well-documented history of mental illness. After the Texas courts denied relief on direct appeal, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but the District Court and the Fifth Circuit rejected his claims, and this Court denied certiorari. In the course of these initial state and federal proceedings, petitioner did not argue that mental illness rendered him incompetent to be executed. Once the state trial court set an execution date, petitioner filed a motion under Texas law claiming, for the first time, that he was incompetent to be executed because of mental illness. The trial judge denied the motion without a hearing, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

He then filed another federal habeas petition under § 2254, and the District Court stayed his execution to allow the state trial court time to consider evidence of his then-current mental state. Once the state court began its adjudication, petitioner submitted 10 motions in which he requested, inter alia, a competency hearing and funds for a mental health expert. The court indicated it would rule on the outstanding motions once it had received the report written by the experts that it had appointed to review petitioner's mental condition. The experts subsequently filed this report, which concluded, inter alia, that petitioner had the ability to understand the reason he was to be executed. Without ruling on the outstanding motions, the judge found petitioner competent and closed the case. Petitioner then returned to the Federal District Court, seeking a resolution of his pending § 2254 petition. The District Court concluded that the state-court competency proceedings failed to comply with Texas law and were constitutionally inadequate in light of the procedural requirements mandated by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335, where this Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits States from inflicting the death penalty upon insane prisoners. Although the court therefore reviewed petitioner's incompetency claim without deferring to the state court's finding of competency, it neverthelessgranted no relief, finding that petitioner had not demonstrated that he met the standard for incompetency. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the court explained, petitioner was competent to be executed so long as he knew the fact of his impending execution and the factual predicate for it. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.


1. This Court has statutory authority to adjudicate the claims raised in petitioner's second federal habeas application. Because § 2244(b)(2) requires that [a] claim presented in a second or successive ... [§ 2254] application ... that was not presented in a prior application ... be dismissed,” the State maintains that the failure of petitioner's first § 2254 application to raise a Ford-based incompetency claim deprived the District Court of jurisdiction. The results this argument would produce show its flaws. Were the State's interpretation of “second or successive” correct, a prisoner would have two options: forgo the opportunity to raise a Ford claim in federal court; or raise the claim in a first federal habeas application even though it is premature. Stewart v. Martinez–Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 644, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849. The dilemma would apply not only to prisoners with mental conditions that, at the time of the initial habeas filing, were indicative of incompetency but also to all other prisoners, including those with no early sign of mental illness. Because all prisoners are at risk of deteriorations in their mental state, conscientious defense attorneys would be obliged to file unripe (and, in many cases, meritless) Ford claims in each and every § 2254 application. This counterintuitive approach would add to the burden imposed on courts, applicants, and the States, with no clear advantage to any. The more reasonable interpretation of § 2244, suggested by this Court's precedents, is that Congress did not intend the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) addressing “second or successive” habeas petitions to govern a filing in the unusual posture presented here: a § 2254 application raising a Ford-based incompetency claim filed as soon as that claim is ripe. See, e.g.,Martinez–Villareal, supra, at 643–645, 118 S.Ct. 1618. This conclusion is confirmed by AEDPA's purposes of “further[ing] comity, finality, and federalism,” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931, “promot[ing] judicial efficiency and conservation of judicial resources, ... and lend[ing] finality to state court judgments within a reasonable time,” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205–206, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376. These purposes, and the practical effects of the Court's holdings, should be considered when interpreting AEDPA, particularly where, as here, petitioners “run the risk” under the proposed interpretation of “forever losing their opportunity for any federal review of their unexhausted claims,” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440. There is, finally, no argument in this case that petitioner proceeded in a manner that could be considered an abuse of the writ. Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827. To the contrary, the Court has suggested that it is generally appropriate for a prisoner to wait before seeking the resolution of unripe incompetencyclaims. See, e.g.,Martinez–Villareal, supra, at 644–645, 118 S.Ct. 1618. Pp. 2852– 2855.

2. The state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution. Ford identifies the measures a State must provide when a prisoner alleges incompetency to be executed. Justice Powell's opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in Ford controls, see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260, and constitutes “clearly established” governing law for AEDPA purposes, § 2254(d)(1). As Justice Powell elaborated, once a prisoner seeking a stay of execution has made “a substantial threshold showing of insanity,” 477 U.S., at 426, 106 S.Ct. 2595, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments entitle him to, inter alia, a fair hearing, id., at 424, 106 S.Ct. 2595,including an opportunity to submit “expert psychiatric evidence that may differ from the State's own psychiatric examination,” id., at 427, 106 S.Ct. 2595. The procedures the state court provided petitioner were so deficient that they cannot be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of the Ford rule. It is uncontested that petitioner made a substantial showing of incompetency. It is also evident from the record, however, that the state court reached its competency determination without holding a hearing or providing petitioner with an adequate opportunity to provide his own expert evidence. Moreover, there is a strong argument that the court violated state law by failing to provide a competency hearing. If so, the violation undermines any reliance the State might now place on Justice Powell's assertion that “the States should have substantial leeway to determine what process best balances the various interests at stake.” Ibid. Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant habeas relief, as relevant, only if a state court's “adjudication of [a claim on the merits] ... resulted in a decision that ... involved an unreasonable application” of the relevant federal law. § 2254(d)(1). If the state court's adjudication is dependent on an antecedent unreasonable application of federal law, that requirement is satisfied, and the federal court must then resolve the claim without the deference AEDPA otherwise requires. See, e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471. Having determined that the state court unreasonably applied Ford when it accorded petitioner the procedures in question, this Court must now consider petitioner's claim on the merits without deferring to the state court's competency finding. Pp. 2855 – 2859.

3. The Fifth Circuit employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner's claim of incompetency on the merits. Pp. 2859 – 2863.

(a) The Fifth Circuit's incompetency standard is too restrictive to afford a prisoner Eighth Amendment protections. Petitioner's experts in the District Court concluded that, although he claims to understand that the State says it wants to execute him for murder, his mental problems have resulted in the delusion that the stated reason is a sham, and that the State actually wants to execute him to stop him from preaching. The Fifth Circuit held, based on its earlier decisions, that such delusions are simply not relevant to whether a prisoner can be executed so long as he is aware that the State has identified the link between his crime and the punishment to be inflicted. This test ignores the possibility that even if such awareness exists, gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put that awareness in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose. It is also inconsistent with Ford, for none of the principles set forth therein is in accord with the Fifth Circuit's rule. Although the Ford opinions did not set forth a precise competency standard, the Court did reach the express conclusion that the Constitution “places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of an insane...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1948 cases
  • Billiot v. Epps
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • November 3, 2009
    ...on the Motion of Petitioner to Determine Competency to be Executed while Being Treated with Anti-Psychotic Medication and Request for Ford /Panetti Competency Hearing Date. The court held a hearing on this Motion on June 25-26, 2009, at which the parties presented evidence and testimony re......
  • Purkey v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 15, 2020
    ...Ford , 477 U.S. at 425, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (emphasis in original) (Powell, J., concurring); see also Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930, 949, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007) (finding that Justice Powell's concurring opinion controls procedure for Ford claims). This temporal question is......
  • Mashburn v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • November 17, 2014
    ...the final step of conducting an independent review of the merits of the petitioner's claims. See Panetti v. Quarterman, 531 U.S. 930, 953, 127 S. Ct. 2842, 2858, 168 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2007); Jones, 469 F.3d 1216 (same). The writ will not issue unless the petitioner shows that he is in custody ......
  • Dominguez v. Trimble
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 21, 2012
    ...under AEDPA. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 754 (9th Cir.2009), quoting Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125 (2008); see Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006). If no clearly established Federal law exists, the inquiry is at an end and the Court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
21 books & journal articles
  • Institutionalizing the Culture of Control
    • United States
    • Sage International Criminal Justice Review No. 24-4, December 2014
    • December 1, 2014
    ...v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989)O’Dell v. Netherland, 117 S. Ct. 1969 (1997)Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006)Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007)Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 (1991)Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001)Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.......
  • Aedpa, Saucier, and the Stronger Case for Rights-first Constitutional Adjudication
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 32-03, March 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...cases because the underlying state court decisions were so inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 286 (2007); Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005); Wig......
  • Proportionality and parole.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 160 No. 6, May 2012
    • May 1, 2012
    ...130 S. Ct. at 2029. (48) See 554 U.S. 407, 413 (2008) (prohibiting imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child). (49) See 551 U.S. 930, 932 (2007) (reaffirming that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a mentally incompetent offender and establishing standards and pro......
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 96 No. 4, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...apparent "indifference" to the practical problems of Marks); supra note 12 and accompanying text. (97) See, e.g., Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 949 (2007) (according precedential effect to Justice Powell's concurrence in an on-point case because, under Marks, it was simply "more limi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Chapter 795, AB 2657 – Incarcerated person's competence
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2022
    ...if they do not have a rational understanding of either the fact of their execution or the reasons for it (see Panetti v. Quarterman (2007) 551 U.S. 930, 959). A person is permanently incompetent to be executed if the nature of the mental illness or disorder giving rise to incompetence is su......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT