WPC *,Bq|>H Old*PgVw# |>*GNL>:!em95jwNS_2}Fn.r?ޏ9 YJ^'JUc~ '~U(A2q'=ᶓ85p$ iEǞf?a{ YK@=&6,Xz֟ΔIPYY°4*,xcz8]&xI_N ~EOG :z}?$mO6.PW㑫ZJF` x!%1Ғ!Q$^XXn8ZKbkV؄R*f|l,K,Cwx}FŦ&uȩ b#\ %% ^ + 07 U N w 4 z%  q  m r   ]U N#NqssE 0Db 0 B 0  D5 D- 0K AS[ 0t 0D A\\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0ap1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular0:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU HiggsPD TranBurkhartcolorableDrowotaLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(I Z6Times New Roman Regular         (#$  0  - -(|I2"$ !.8Odd8         0  %Ԁ d(|3v$ !.8Odd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$ !.8Odd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Odd8     _   O8IXXdd8@@@OO@ -OINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#O-^#Ԉ &   April7,2004Session L   XIXO#OXXIK#? MICHAELWAYNEHOWELLv.STATEOFTENNESSEE XIXO J #OXXI#XIXO AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J #OXXI'#XIXOCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.P14334Hon.OtisHiggs,Jr.,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200301056SCR11PD#OXXI#ԀFiledNovember16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      XIXOJaniceM.Holder,J.,concurringanddissenting <   IagreewithChiefJustice_Drowota_sconcurringanddissentingopinionandwriteseparately  onlytounderscoremyviewthatthemajorityhaserredinapplyingadueprocessanalysis.    Amotiontoreopenbasedupontheallegedmentalretardationofacapitalpetitionerisunique t duetotheexistenceofastatuteprohibitingtheexecutionofmentallyretardeddefendants.SeeTenn. ` CodeAnn.3913203(2003).AlthoughthisCourtinVanTranrecognizedthataconstitutional L claimbasedonmentalretardationcouldberaisedthroughamotiontoreopen,weadoptedthe 8 statutorycriteriainTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913203toevaluatetheclaim.VanTran $t v.State,66S.W.3d790,812(Tenn.2001).Thus,VanTranmerelyreaffirmedtheStatespre ` existingprohibitionagainstexecutingthementallyretarded.WedidnotspecifyinVanTran, L however,whethertheevidentiarystandardsetforthinthementalretardationstatuteorinthepost  8 convictionstatuteshouldapplytocollateralreviewofamentalretardationclaim. !$    Itiswellsettledthatcourtshaveadutytoconstrueastatutetoavoidaconstitutionalconflict. #" Statev.Burkhart,58S.W.3d694,69798(Tenn.2001).Toavoidaconstitutionalconflictinthis $# case,Iwouldlimittheroleofthestatutepermittingmotionstoreopenapostconvictionpetitionto % $ determiningwhetherapetitionerhasraisedaconstitutionalclaimofmentalretardationwithinone p&!% yearofVanTranorAtkinsv.Virginia,536U.S.304(2002).Iwouldthenemploythemental \'"& retardationstatutetoevaluatetheconstitutionalclaim.Thus,thementalretardationstatuteshould H(#' beemployedregardlessofwhethertheconstitutionalclaimisraisedattrial,inaninitialpost 4)$( convictionpetition,orinamotiontoreopen.Asimilar brightlineapproachwasadoptedbythe  *p%) MissouriSupremeCourtinJohnsonv.State,102S.W.3d535,540(Mo.2003),withoutapplying  +\&* adueprocessanalysis. +H'+   ,4(, _  Inapplyingthementalretardationstatutetoaconstitutionalclaim,atrialcourtwouldfirst   determinewhetherapetitionerhassufficientlyestablishedaprimafaciecasetowarrantan  evidentiaryhearing.Ifso,atrialcourtwouldthenholdahearinganddeterminewhetherapetitioner  hasprovenhisallegationsbya preponderanceofevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913203(c). t   IagreewithChiefJusticeDrowotathatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenying L  thepetitionersmotiontoreopenforfailuretostateaprimafaciecaseofmentalretardation. 8  Therefore,IwouldaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. $ t    `     h     _________________________________  8     `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE