WPCH  aW;oaW;on.N<"h RfR0βz8y'D<W4^6(vᕞOd-`EA4/pH2.v̓ =r/=sXg\Rը _ȹe;tttwJ8M(ܝm_R&|JE% {fb /yr$wAaB QO{|wAv& -íWcMl͆g-1F/6Y]mk&Jh!"cu^:]nqzGp)iYq-\`M #:c~!*e#ɨSkT9VN4LN>s{!S8Cmw1G8~y2Q8O,b>4&V2(2{+rZ,F'ީ#Ғ%͠S3GWleo`Tg/Di# % ^ 0 UN! wo 4s z    m n i/U@N 0DU>E 0UE68 0 0 0| 0; 0 0 0T 0 0 0a 02 0 0 09 0 0u 0  0 0Y 0'!b! 0! 0" 0-# 0# 0c$ 0$ 0% 01& 0& 0>' 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0k, 0M- 0. 02. 0 / 0:0 0YA0 0_0 0 0 02 03 B*5 D/5 05 D/7 08 068 09 0:%: 0^_: 0: 0<; 1e;U6I< B<U*< 0< D3j= D-= 0K=> AS>p> 06? 0D? A@ 0c@3,A _DVqD PG 1uH 72H\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0Tp1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular0 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU d R $      3  Y  _TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtthereafterheldthattheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution  prohibitsexecutingthementallyretarded.Atkinsv.Virginia,536U.S.304,321(2002). Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman (#$  0  \  `&Times New Roman R $      1  Y  _530U.S.466(2000).*+ (_2623  .. R $      2  Y  _536U.S.584(2002).*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  - -(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      (|G2 $ !.8Wdd8         0  Y2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New d%2A`Arial(|3$ !.8Wdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Wdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(;3$2#  0  .3  0   ) R $      4  Y  _YYTheWAISIIIyieldedaverbalI.Q.of75,performanceIQof75,andfullscaleI.Q.of73.The_Standford_Ԁ_Binet_  IntelligenceTestFourthEditionyieldedacompositescoreof62,averbalreasoningscoreof60,anabstractreasoning t scoreof78,aquantitativereasoningscoreof60,andashorttermmemoryscoreof68.TheComprehensiveTestof 8 nonverbalintelligenceyieldedanonverbalI.Q.of67,apictorialnonverbalI.Q.of70,andageometricnonverbalI.Q. L of68.#YY~#SDU_16 L R $      5  Y  _TheGeneralAssemblymaywishtoconsiderdesignatingatestortestsforcourtstoconsider.Otherwise,this  determinationlikelywillcontinuetobeplaguedwithconfusionanduncertainty.NothinginthisCourtsdecisioninVan t _Tran_norintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdecisioninAtkinsforecloseslegislationdesignatingoneormoretests. 8 Indeed,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinAtkinslefttothestates thetaskofdevelopingappropriatewaystoenforce L [the]constitutionalrestrictionuponexecutingmentallyretardedindividuals.122S.Ct.at2250citeas((Cite as: 70 S.W.3d 717, *721)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)gi) !.8Wdd8     _   W8 XXdd8WW X=Wdd=@ WWOXWINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#WOX#Ԉ &   April7,2004Session L X XW#WXX v#OXW MICHAELWAYNEHOWELLv.STATEOFTENNESSEE #WOX#X XW J #WXX .#X XW AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  Z #WXX #X XWCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  F @@No.P14334Hon.Otis_Higgs_,Jr.,Judge  2 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200301056SCR11_PD_Ԁ#WXX #X XW#WXX #X XWԄFiledNovember16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<x` A y   #X XXX v##WXX #X XW  #WXX #X X.WFrankF._Drowota_,III,J.,concurringanddissenting. `   Iconcurinthemajoritydecisioninsofarasitholdsthatneither_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey, #  1      ׀nor 8 Ringv.Arizona.T #  2      ׀mandatesajurytrialonmentalretardation.Ialsoagreewiththemajoritythat $t mentalretardationisnotanelementoftheoffensewhichtheStatemustdisprovebeyonda ` reasonabledoubt.Furthermore,IagreewiththemajoritythattheGeneralAssemblyadopteda L brightlinerulerequiringindividualsclaimingmentalretardationtopresentproofofanI.Q.of 8 seventyorbelow.However,IdisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthatMichaelWayneHowell $ isentitledtoreopenhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefandtohaveanevidentiaryhearingonhis  mentalretardationclaim.Inmyopinion,thetrialcourtscrupulouslyappliedthegoverninglegal  standardsandcorrectlydeniedHowellsmotiontoreopenforfailuretostateaprimafacieclaimof  mentalretardation.Inmyview,DueProcessdoesnotrequiretrialcourtstoapplythe _colorable_  claimstandardtoamotiontoreopenallegingmentalretardation.Forthesereasons,Iwouldaffirm p thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. \  @& Analysis  4"!   TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyin1990enactedlegislationprohibitingtheexecutionof  #p" mentallyretardedindividuals.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913203(2003).TheGeneralAssemblydid  $\# notprovideforretroactiveapplicationofthisstatute.Elevenyearslater,however,amajorityofthis $H $ Courtheldthatthestateconstitutionprohibitsexecutingindividualswhoarementallyretarded.Van %4!% _Tran_Ԁv.State,66S.W.3d790(Tenn.2001).  #  3      ׀ThemajorityinVan_Tran_determinedthatthenewly & "& recognizedconstitutionalright _warrant[ed_]retroactiveapplicationtocasesoncollateralreview. ' #' 66S.W.3dat811.CentrallyimportanttotheissuespresentedinthisappealisthefactthatVan_Tran_  wasitselfamotiontoreopenproceeding.Id.at792.Inprovidingdirectionsforthetrialcourtto  followuponremandinevaluatingthemotiontoreopenthisCourtinVan_Tran_stated:  0  thetrialcourtshallhearthepetitionersmotiontoreopenandmakeadeterminationastothe ` petitionersallegedmentalretardation.Theapplicablecriteriaarethosepresentlysetforth L  bystatute:(1)significantlysubaveragegeneralintellectualfunctioningasevidencedbya 8  functionalintelligencequotient(I.Q.)ofseventy(70)orbelow;(2)deficitsinadaptive $ t behavior:and(3)mentalretardationmanifestedduringthedevelopmentalperiod,orby  ` eighteen(18)yearsofage. L (#(# 66S.W.3dat812.Thus,inVan_Tran_,thisCourtrecognizedtheconstitutionalprohibitionagainst $  executingthementallyretarded,explainedthatthisrightshouldapplyretroactivelytocaseson   collateralreview,andinstructedtrialcourtstoevaluatemotionstoreopenallegingmentalretardation   underTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913203.     Clearly,thetrialcourtinthiscasescrupulouslyfollowedthedirectivesthisCourtprovided p inVan_Tran_.ThetrialcourtevaluatedHowellsmotiontoreopenunderTennesseeCodeAnnotated \ section3913203.ThetrialcourtdeniedHowellsmotiontoreopenuponfindingthatHowellhad H failedtomakeaprimafaciecaseontwoofthethreecriteriathisCourtidentifiedinVan_Tran_!an 4 I.Q.ofseventy(70)orbelowanddeficitsinadaptivebehavior.Thetrialcourtpointedoutthatthe  p WechslerAdultIntelligenceScale3rdEdition( WAISIII)didnotshowHowellsI.Q.tobe  \ seventy(70)orbelow,andthetrialcourtemphasizedthatHowellhadfailedtoallegefactstoshow H deficitsinadaptivebehavior.Thus,thetrialcourtfound: 4 8  ThePetitionerhasfailedtomakeaprimafaciecasethathewasmentallyretardedat   thetimehecommittedtheoffensesforwhichhewasconvicted.Hedoesnotqualify  asamentallyretardeddefendantinaccordancewiththecriteriasetforthinTennessee  CodeAnnotated3913203,andassuch,hisdeathpenaltyisnotunconstitutional.  ThisMotiontoReOpenPetitionforPostConvictionReliefiswithoutmeritand l shouldbedismissedwithoutthebenefitofahearing.X      IdonotagreewithHowellsassertionthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbydismissing 0"  themotiontoreopenwithoutahearing.Howellarguesthatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveaccredited #l! hisperformanceontheWAISIIItotheexclusionofhisscoresontheotherI.Q.testsadministered._c #  4      _Ԁ $X"  NeitherthisCourtnortheGeneralAssemblyhasinstructedtrialcourtstoaccreditaparticulartest $D # whendeterminingwhetheranindividualsI.Q.isseventyorbelow._e #  5      _ԀNonetheless,inmyview,the   trialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyaccreditingtheWAISIIIresultstotheexclusionofthe  resultsoftheotherI.Q.testsadministered.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthatthe  WAISIIIis thestandardinstrumentintheUnitedStatesforassessingintellectualfunctioning. t Atkins,122S.Ct.at2245n.5.AnotherfederalcourthasreferredtotheWAISIIIasthe gold ` standardI.Q.test.Waltonv.Johnson,269F.Supp.692(W.D.Va.2003).Inmyview,wherean L  individualsI.Q.asmeasuredbythestandardtestinthefieldnegatestheindividualsclaimofmental 8  retardation,atrialcourtdoesnotabuseitsdiscretionbydenyingamotiontoreopen.Notonlydid $ t theWAISIIIfullscaleI.Q.of73negateHowellsmentalretardationclaim,intheveryproceeding  ` Howellnowseekstoreopen,HowellhaspresentedevidenceofanI.Q.of91.Howellv.State,No.  L  02C019706CR00200,1997WL746438,at*7(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997),perm.app.denied(Tenn.  8  June8,1998).Underthesecircumstances,thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbydismissing $  HowellsmotiontoreopenafterdeterminingthatHowellhadfailedtopresentessentialevidenceof   anI.Q.ofseventyorbelow.     Furthermore,althoughgenerallystatingthatHowellhasdeficitsinadaptivebehavior,the   affidavitofferedinsupportofHowellsmotiontoreopendoesnotincludefactssupportingthese p statements.Again,inmyview,atrialcourtdoesnotabuseitsdiscretionbydismissingamotionto \ reopenthatisbaseduponanaffidavitwhichincludesonlyconclusionsratherthanfacts. H   Additionallytherecordclearlyrevealsthatthetrialcourtdidnotbaseitsdismissalof  p HowellsmotiontoreopenupontheclearandconvincingevidencestandardofTennesseeCode  \ Annotatedsection4030117(a)(4).NordidtheCourtofCriminalAppealsbaseitsdecisionupon H Howellsfailuretomeetthatclearandconvincingevidencestandard.Tobesure,theCourtof 4 CriminalAppealsquotedtheclearandconvincingevidencestandardandcitedTennesseeCode   Annotatedsection4030117(a)(4).Nonetheless,theintermediateappellatecourtapplied,correctly,   the abuseofdiscretionstandardofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117(c),stating   [_b]ased_Ԁupontheforegoing,wecannotconcludethatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenying  themotiontoreopen.Thus,themajorityopinionisbaseduponapremisethatsimplyisnot  accurateasamatteroffact.NeitherthetrialcourtnortheCourtofCriminalAppealsdenied l Howellsmotiontoreopenforfailuretosatisfytheclearandconvincingevidencestandardofsection X  4030117(a)(4).ConsistentwiththisCourtsdecisioninVan_Tran_,thetrialcourtevaluatedthe D! motionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913203anddeterminedthatHowellhadfailed 0"  tomakeoutaprimafacieclaimofmentalretardation.Indoingso,thetrialcourtemployeda #l! procedureapprovedbythisCourtinVan_Tran_,andtherecorddoesnot,inmyview,indicatethatthe $X" trialcourtabuseditsdiscretioneitherbyaccreditingtheresultsoftheWAISIIIorbyfindingthat $D # Howellhadfailedtoallegefactsdemonstratingdeficitsinadaptivebehavior. %0!$  &"%   Furthermore,thestandardappliedbythetrialcourtappearstobelesssearching,orinany  event,certainlynomoresearching,thanthe _colorable_Ԁclaimstandardthemajoritysettlesuponby  wayofacomplicatedandunnecessaryconstitutionalanalysis.Inadoptingthe _colorable_Ԁclaim  standardasapurportedmatterofconstitutionalnecessity,themajoritydisregardsthelongstanding t principlethatcourtsdonotX XXX decideconstitutionalquestionsunlessresolutionisabsolutely#X XXX 4#X XXX necessary ` todeterminetheissuesinacaseandadjudicatetherightsoftheparties.#X XXX N5#X XXX ԀStatev.Taylor,70S.W.3d L  717,720(Tenn.2002)#X XXX 6#;X XXX Owensv.State,#X XXX 6#X XXX Ԁ908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995)(citingcases);#X XXX 6#X XXX seealso 8  ThreeAffiliatedTribesoftheFortBertholdReservationv.Wold#X XXX \7#% d %d8X XXX _Eng'g_,P.C.,#X XXX  8#X XXX Ԁ467U.S.138,157, $ t (1984)("Itisafundamentalruleofjudicialrestraint...#X XXX 8#% f X XXX Ԁ%f89#X XXX E9#X XXX thatthisCourtwillnotreachconstitutional  ` questionsinadvanceofthenecessityofdecidingthem.");#X XXX 9#X XXX _Spector_ԀMotorServ.,Inc.v.McLaughlin,#X XXX Z:#X XXX   L  323U.S.101,105(1944)("Ifthereisonedoctrinemoredeeplyrootedthananyotherintheprocess  8  ofconstitutionaladjudication,itisthatweoughtnottopassonquestionsofconstitutionality... $  unlesssuchadjudicationisunavoidable.");#X XXX :#X XXX Burtonv.UnitedStates,#X XXX `<#X XXX Ԁ196U.S.283,295(1905)("It   isnotthehabitofthecourttodecidequestionsofaconstitutionalnatureunlessabsolutelynecessary   toadecisionofthecase.");#X XXX <#X XXX Firestonev._Galbreath_,#X XXX =#X XXX Ԁ976F.2d279,286(6thCir.1992)("Deciding   constitutionalissuesonlyafterconsideringandrejectingevery_nonconstitutional_Ԁgroundforthe   decisionisafundamentalruleofjudicialrestraint.").Furthermore,whenconsideringthe p constitutionalityofastatute,courtsaredutyboundtoadoptaconstructionthatwillsustainthe \ statuteandavoidconstitutionalconflictifatallpossible,andthisdutyrequirescourtstoindulge H everypresumptionandtoresolveeverydoubtinfavorofthestatute'sconstitutionality.#X XXX L>#X XXX SeeTaylor, 4 70S.W.3dat721;Statev._Burkhart_,#X XXX %A#X XXX Ԁ58S.W.3d694,69798(Tenn.2001);#X XXX A#X XXX Helmsv.TennesseeDept.  p ofSafety,#X XXX CB#X XXX Ԁ987S.W.2d545,549(Tenn.1999);#X XXX B#X XXX InRePetitionof_Burson_,#X XXX &C#X XXX Ԁ909S.W.2d768,775  \ (Tenn.1995);#X XXX C#X XXX Statev.Lyons,#X XXX D#X XXX Ԁ802S.W.2d590,592(Tenn.1990).Inthisappeal,themajorityappears H toindulgeeverypresumptionagainsttheconstitutionalvalidityoftheclearandconvincingevidence 4 standardofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117(a)(4)andadoptsaconstructionthat   createsaconstitutionalconflict,whichthemajoritythenresolvesbyignoringthisCourtsprior   decisioninVan_Tran_andbythenengraftingthe _colorable_Ԁclaimstandarduponthemotionto  reopenstatute.#X XXX sD#    NotonlyamIconvincedthatthemajorityshouldhavedeclinedtocreateandthenruleupon l aconstitutionalissue,Ialsoamconstrainedtodisagreewiththemajoritysresolutionofthe X  constitutionalissueitcreates.Inmyview,applyingtheclearandconvincingevidencestandardof D! TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117(a)(4)wouldnotviolateHowellsconstitutionalright 0"  toDueProcess;therefore,engraftingthe _colorable_Ԁclaimstandarduponsection4030117(a)is #l! notaconstitutionalnecessity,asthemajorityholds.Applyingthebalancingtestenunciatedin $X" Burfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,209(Tenn.1992),theprivateinterestatstakeinthiscaseisnot $D # Howellsopportunitytochallengehisdeathsentenceonthegroundofmentalretardationunderthis %0!$ CourtsdecisioninVan_Tran_andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdecisioninAtkins.Howell, &"% infact,hasbeenaffordedalreadysuchanopportunity.Instead,theprivateinterestatstakeis '#& Howellsopportunitytohavehischallengeconsideredundera _colorable_Ԁclaimstandardratherthan (#' thestatutorystandardofclearandconvincingevidence.AstheStatepointsout,Howellsinterest )$( isfundamentallydifferentthantheprivateinterestsatstakeinBurfordanditsprogeny,wherethe |*%) petitionerswereentirelybarredfromseekingpostconvictionreliefbytheapplicablestatuteof h+&* limitations.SeealsoWorkmanv.State,41S.W.3d100(Tenn.2001);Williamsv.State,44S.W.3d  464(Tenn.2001);Sealsv.State,23S.W.3d272(Tenn.2000);Watkinsv.State,903S.W.2d302  (Tenn.1995).Ineachofthesepriorcases,thisCourtobservedthatthestatuteoflimitationsoperated  to terminateanotherwiseexistingstatutoryrighttoseekpostconvictionrelief.Seals,23S.W.3d t at277(quotingBurford).BecausethemotiontoreopenstatutedoesnotentirelyprecludeHowell ` fromseekingrelieffromhisdeathsentencebaseduponhisclaimofmentalretardation,thetherisk L  oferroneousdeprivationisminimal.Ontheotherhand,theStatehasasubstantialinterestbothin 8  thefinalityofcriminaljudgmentsandinpreventinggroundlessclaimsthatinevitablyarisewith $ t newlyrecognizedconstitutionalrules.TheStatehaschosentoprotecttheseinterestsbycreatinga  ` summarystatutoryprocedurethatisdesignedtowinnowoutfrivolousclaims.SeeHarrisv.State,  L  102S.W.3d587(Tenn.2003).Applyingtheclearandconvincingevidencestandardtoenforcethe  8  Statesinterestsappearsparticularlyappropriateinthiscase.Howellhasavailedhimselfofappellate $  andpostconvictionremedies.Moreimportantly,intheveryproceedinghenowseekstoreopen,   HowellofferedproofofanI.Q.of91!proofthatnegateshispresentclaimofmentalretardation.   Howellv.State,No.02C019706CR00200,1997WL746438,at*7(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997),   perm.app.denied(Tenn.June8,1998).ForthesereasonsIdonotagreewiththemajoritythat   applyingtheclearandconvincingevidencestandardofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030 p 117(a)(4)wouldviolateHowellsconstitutionalrighttoDueProcess. \   Furthermore,evenifIagreedwiththemajorityontheconstitutionalissueitcreates,Iwould 4 notagreewiththemajoritysdecision.Attheriskofredundancy,Iamcompelledtoagainpointout  p thatthetrialcourtsimplydidnotbasedismissalofHowellsmotiontoreopenupontheclearand  \ convincingevidencestandardofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117(a)(4).Consistent H withVan_Tran_,thetrialcourtevaluatedthemotiontoreopentodeterminewhetherHowellhad 4 allegedaprimafacieclaimofmentalretardation.Inmyview,thetrialcourtdidnotabuseits   discretionindoingso.Howellhasnotbeendeprivedofanopportunitytopresenthisclaim.The   failureofHowellsmotiontoreopenistheresultofhisfailuretoofferproofofaprimafacieclaim  ofmentalretardation.  @  % Conclusion  l   Forthereasonshereinstated,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisioninsofarasitholdsthatajury X  trialonmentalretardationisnotmandatedbythestateorfederalconstitution.Ialsoagreewiththe D! majoritythatmentalretardationisnotanelementoftheoffensewhichtheStatemustdisprove 0"  beyondareasonabledoubt.However,IdisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthatMichaelWayne #l! Howellisentitledtoreopenhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefandtohaveanevidentiaryhearing $X" onhismentalretardationclaim.IwouldaffirmthedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealswhich $D # affirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt. %0!$    `    `       `     h   ___________________________________ h+&*    `     h   FRANKF._DROWOTA_ԀIII,CHIEFJUSTICE