Hall v. Florida

2040 Words5 Pages

Facts and lower court procedural disposition of the case Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” . Lower courts gave him no reprieve, though, and Hall petitioned the Supreme Court for relief based on Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987), a case in which the Court found that “all mitigating factors, not just statutory mitigation, should be considered by the judge and jury” . The Court did not find Hall to have an adequate claim, and the governor of Florida signed Hall’s second death warrant in September 1988. When Hall filed his second claim to the Court, again claiming procedural error under Hitchcock, it this time determined that an error had occurred and granted him a new sentencing proceeding. At the 1993 trial, the court found Hall mentally retarded yet competent enough to stand trial; it again sentenced him to death. In 2002, the Court decided Atkins and opened the door for defendants to challenge their sentence using Atkins claims. Hall filed such a motion in 2004, but the evidentiary hearing to reexamine the mental retard... ... middle of paper ... ...s Claims of Mental Retardation, 39 HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY 1, 1-173 (2011). Tobolowsky, supra at 47. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 921.137(1) Brief of Petitioner at 10, Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882 (2013). Id. at 7 (quoting Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. Dec. 20, 2012)). Id. Brief of Petitioner, supra at 8 (quoting Hall 109 So.3d at 714). Brief of Respondent, supra at 9 Brief of Petitioner, supra at 8 (quoting Hall 109 So.3d at 714). David Wechsler, WAIS IV Administrative and Scoring Manuel (2008), at http://ux1.eiu.edu/~glcanivez/Adobe%20pdf/Publications-Papers/Canivez%20(2010)%20Buros%20MMY%20WAIS-IV%20Review.pdf Brief of Petitioner, supra at 10 Brief of Petitioner, supra at 13. Brief of Respondent, supra at 9. Tobolowsky, supra at 10. Id. at 11 (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308) Id. (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317, n.22).

Open Document