Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alfredo Prieto v. David Zook, 4th Cir. (2015)
Alfredo Prieto v. David Zook, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4
ALFREDO PRIETO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID ZOOK, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00849-HEH)
Argued:
Decided:
2254.
He
contends
that
the
Eighth
Amendment
We affirm.
I.
In 2007, a Virginia jury convicted Prieto of two counts of
capital murder, two counts of use of a firearm in the commission
of murder, grand larceny, and rape.
Discovery of juror
Id. at 913.
substantial
intellectual
disability,
evidence
but
the
in
support
jury
found
of
his
that
he
Prieto
claim
was
of
not
convictions
but
vacated
his
death
sentences
due
to
Id. at
penalty
for
a
both
third
jury
murder
unanimously
convictions.
recommended
(Prieto
did
the
not
state
trial
court
entered
an
order
imposing
the
death
counsel
was
constitutionally
ineffective
and
that
his
I State Prison, 748 S.E.2d 94, 105 (Va. 2013) (Prieto III).
As relevant here, that court held that Prieto could not raise
his Atkins claim in his state habeas petition because he had
failed to raise the claim on direct appeal of the 2010 order
imposing the death sentences.
Id.
Id.
claims.
Id. at 98.
meritless;
it
dismissed
his
Atkins
claim
as
procedurally
defaulted.
Atkins claim.
II.
Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light
of our evolving standards of decency, the Supreme Court in
Atkins
held
mentally
omitted).
that
death
retarded 2
is
not
criminal.
suitable
536
U.S.
punishment
at
321
for
(citation
restriction
announced in Atkins.
on
the
death
penalty
that
it
Later,
the
Supreme
Court
substituted
the
term
intellectual disability for mental retardation.
Hall, 134
S. Ct. at 1990. We do the same, except when quoting from cases,
statutes, and testimony that use the term mentally retarded
and pre-date the Courts guidance in Hall.
one
may
be
classified
as
being
mentally
retarded.
IQ
defendant
with
an
score
of
71
or
higher
could
not
be
Florida
statute
containing
rigid
Id.
rule
The Hall
Court
explained
that
states
assessment
of
defendants
during
significantly
the
developmental
subaverage
intellectual
period,
both
functioning,
and
(1)
(2)
The
Court
interrelated
Id. at 2001.
and
emphasized
that
no
that
single
these
factor
two
[is]
Id. at
criteria
are
dispositive.
additional
adaptive functioning.
evidence
regarding
difficulties
in
Hall,
it
is
clear
Virginias
prior
interpretation
that
of
the
the
Supreme
first
Court
prong
of
of
the
the
based
on
to
evidence
establish
of
his
deficits
intellectual
in
adaptive
operated
under
Id. at 2001.
an
unconstitutional
6
definition
of
intellectual
disability
at
the
time
of
Prietos
sentencing
does not resolve the Atkins inquiry if, as the state habeas
court
and
the
district
court
held,
Prieto
has
procedurally
III.
A.
Federal courts will not review a question of federal law
decided by a state court if the state courts decision rests on
an
independent
and
adequate
state
law
ground.
Coleman
v.
because
procedural
the
prisoner
requirement[,]
had
.
failed
the
state
to
meet
judgment
state
rests
on
Id. at 730.
In
federalism
these
circumstances,
concerns
of
comity
and
Id.
Atkins
claim
because
he
could
have
raised
it
on
direct
See Prieto
Virginia
Prieto
procedural
default
rule
constitutes
an
on
direct
review.
As
such,
Prietos
Atkins
claim
is
See
Prieto
habeas
petitioner
procedural
default
can
if
rescue
he
his
constitutional
establishes
either
claim
cause
and
F.3d 442, 445 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S.
255, 262 (1989)).
district
court,
however,
found
Prietos
ineffective
the
procedural
only
default
way
Prietos
is
through
Atkins
showing
As a
claim
survives
his
that
enforcing
the
Supreme
Court
has
explained
that
fundamental
by
proving
through
clear
and
convincing
evidence
have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty under
the applicable state law.
Id. at 336.
is
innocent
procedural
of
default,
death.
Prieto
Thus,
must
for
show
us
that,
to
if
excuse
his
instructed
IV.
Prieto rests his claim of actual innocence on the Supreme
Courts decision in Hall.
determined
applies
whether
collateral review. 4
Hall
retroactively
to
cases
on
not
shown
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
no
disabled.
We
review
the
denial
of
Prietos
innocence
sentencing
hearing
claim
is
the
evidence
following
his
2008
introduced
conviction. 5
at
At
the
that
intellectual
evidence
included
the
testimony
of
multiple
expert
comprehensive
neuropsychological
explained
that
evaluation
functioning
adaptive
and
adaptive
functioning
of
Mr.
Prietos
functioning.
includes
He
occupational
He
also
interviewed
individuals
from
the
El
in
the
country
when
Prieto
was
child.
Prieto
was
problems
learning
simple
tasks.
Interviewees
told
friends;
kids
his
age
did
not
like
to
play
with
him
for
childhood.
adaptive
functioning
deficits
throughout
Prietos
cognitive
stimulation.
He
suffered
abuse
from
his
well
as
witnessing
his
grandfathers
shooting
death.
After
developmental
neurological
years.
testing
revealed
He
also
brain
opined
that
Prietos
dysfunction
affecting
areas of the brain that deal with judgment, deal with being
able to foresee consequences of behaviors, control sexuality,
control aggression, . . . [and] are responsible[] for . . .
empathy.
Other
witnesses
for
Prieto
offered
similar
testimony.
he
concluded
that
Prieto
suffers
from
post
trauma
has
history
of
chronic
polysubstance
dependence.
scans
revealed
damage
to
the
areas
of
the
brain
that
Members
development.
Hence,
Prietos
defense
at
his
2008
The
jury
heard
psychologists
had
from
the
evaluated
prosecution
Prieto
that
when
three
he
was
that
developed,
reasoning
[sic].
Prietos
and
were
that
cognitive
his
adequate
level
for
the
functions
of
were
conceptual
formation
of
adequately
thinking
good
and
judgement
The jury learned that Prieto had written his own prison
pro
se
legal
challenge
to
the
conditions
of
his
employed
and
accurate
conducted
copies
of
legal
self-directed
terminology
Prietos
legal
to
research.
elementary
and
prepare
The
high
school
jury
them,
he
received
report
cards
crimes,
and
that
he
had
exhibited
leadership
abilities
when
reviewed
past
reports
on
him
by
prison
officials,
Prieto
understood
the
structure
of
jail,
had
fairly
skills.
engage
respectfully
networks,
had
relationships,
The
doctor
with
been
and
cited
others,
involved
could
evidence
could
in
perform
that
work
intimate
daily
Prieto
within
could
social
interpersonal
mathematical
and
explain why it was important to have his hair cut for court,
because he understood the value of creating a good impression,
reflecting
his
social
awareness.
Ultimately,
Dr.
Hagan
of
significant
limitations,
because
of
his
Prieto does
As a result, we are
faced
all
of
this
evidence
as
to
his
adaptive
functioning, would find him eligible for the death penalty even if the jury were instructed properly under Hall.
Perhaps because of this, Prieto argues that the evidence he
has already presented is similar to the evidence Hall offered to
prove his intellectual disability.
First,
the
Hall
Court
never
that
Hall
was
Prieto
in
establishing
his
own
disability.
In
fact,
expressly
noted
intellectually disabled.
that
Hall
may
or
may
not
be
Moreover,
Hall
penalty before the Court could consider the merits of his Eighth
Amendment claim; Prieto does.
On
the
record
before
us,
we
cannot
conclude
that
after
that
his
adaptive
functioning
is
not
deficient.
And absent a
cannot
overcome
the
procedural
default
that
bars
V.
The
procedural
fundamental
default
miscarriage
imposes
of
justice
demanding
exception
burden
on
to
habeas
Id. at 559.
It
18