No. 19-8011

James Anderson Dellinger v. Tennessee

Lower Court: Tennessee
Docketed: 2020-03-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: atkins-v-virginia constitutional-mandate death-penalty due-process eighth-amendment intellectual-disability judicial-abdication legislative-inaction procedural-vehicle
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference: 2020-06-25 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May Tennessee evade the constitutional mandate of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) via legislative inaction and judicial abdication?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Myr. Dellinger has a full-scale I.Q. of 69; he never could read, write, figure out which restroom to use, buy bread, or measure a board. His adaptive deficits were obvious and profound as a child, even before he was kicked in the head by a horse. No court has ever considered the proof of his disability, because the Tennessee courts have found, “as far as we are able to discern, Petitioner has no state court remedy in order to present his claim that the sentence of death is void due to his alleged intellectual disability.” Apx. 9a. The Tennessee courts recognize that the state has “no business executing the intellectually disabled,” but, also hold that there is no present statutory remedy available for prisoners like Mr. Dellinger. Apx. 4a, 9a (citing Keen v. State, 398 S.W.3d 594, 613 (Tenn. 2012)). The Tennessee Supreme Court left it to the Tennessee legislature to “create a procedure that accommodates prisoners on death row whose intellectual disability claims cannot be raised under [current Tennessee law].” Apx. 9a (citing Keen, 398 S.W.3d at 613). The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that “(t]he General Assembly is in its seventh session since Keen was filed and no legislation establishing a procedure mentioned in Keen has become law.” Apx. 9a. Mr. Dellinger’s case presents this question: May Tennessee evade the constitutional mandate of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) via legislative inaction and judicial abdication? That is, may a state thwart the Constitutional prohibition against execution of the intellectually disabled by failing to provide a procedural vehicle for the adjudication of an Atkins exemption claim? 1 OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals below is unreported. De/linger v. State, No. (Tenn.Crim.App. April 17, 2019); Apx. la. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. Dellinger v. State, No. (Tenn. August 14, 2019); Apx. 12a.

Docket Entries

2020-06-29
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.
2020-06-01
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-05-18
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2020-04-27
Reply of petitioner James Dellinger filed. (Distributed)
2020-04-14
Brief of respondent State of Tennessee in opposition filed.
2020-01-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 15, 2020)
2019-11-06
Application (19A497) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until January 13, 2020.
2019-11-01
Application (19A497) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 12, 2019 to January 11, 2020, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

Attorneys

James Dellinger
Amy Dawn HarwellFederal Public Defender TNM, Petitioner
State of Tennessee
Benjamin Anthony BallOffice of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent