ÿWPC®@ WGû¼wŸk ÙjDkO>™ª:k ÙjÛE±¨deåF&£óGïS+¤Î"ê¨Ë6E¥e,6šBŠø}G4™F/•µ9|á³~jÎM™ ¼Y‚`ƒs­bjÓyÞÉ [ŠvÂVŒ¾„^¼þ`«\šý3Vac üAƒ7«Ö[¶´z2S¡D¸P´6J˜ÛöˆîŒ{õaI•âä:Z¯ óÆs÷é´3š,}âMš`Om£gëZŒôkäÒ$Äs2¤FÍÜèoËùùG0§¡Ï2ïDl$es[aŽ³Ç£ã` â*Cæ1ýQ,MÜ•ÁMQ‰LÀØ?îe(æ>ýéŽäùÒã*´"2Ç«ë÷¿q¥^É'êLxï(eHQʰ]bžê/¸O€ÞBt‚¿÷«Ò[3ÌšD¥¡±o4õ»Ši ºó§ªÆ 'L˜¤g`ùôùi!@ô/)æ†-ÒêÆU> 0¤? 0D¿? A«@˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»m£p1 (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular„‚–0ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòApprendióó€that€all€factual€issues€used€to€enhance€a€criminal€sentence€beyond€theÐ ° Ðstatutory€maximum€must€be€found€by€a€jury.€€òòóó530€U.S.€at€491„92.€€This€reasoning€was€extended€in€òòRingóó€to€apply€toÐ tÄ Ðcapital€sentencing€proceedings.€€òòóó536€U.S.€at€589.€€We€also€note€that,€although€not€cited€by€the€petitioner,€the€latest€in€thisÐ 8ˆ Ðline€of€cases€is€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,€No.€02„1632,€2004€WL€1402697,€(U.S.€June€24,€2004).€€In€òòBlakelyóó,€the€CourtÐ üL Ðheld€that€the€statutory€maximum€sentence,€as€expressed€in€òòApprendióó,€is€ð ðthe€maximum€sentence€a€judge€may€imposeÐ À Ðsolely€on€the€basis€of€the€facts€reflected€in€the€jury€verdict€or€admitted€by€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*6.Ô‡X­Xòôâ Ô€Ô#†ôâ òXX­Á#Ô  Ñ  Ñ ”Ý ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ô536€U.S.€584€(2002). Ý ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAriz.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€13„1105Ô_Ô(cÔ_Ô)€(West€2001);€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòRingóó,€536€U.S.€at€592. FÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔSee€òòAtkinsóó,€536€U.S.€at€n.3€(2002)€(quoting€both€the€American€Association€on€Mental€Retardation€and€theÐ ° ÐAmerican€Psychiatric€Association€definition€of€mental€retardation.). ºÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X­Xòôâ Ô€òòÔ#†ôâ òXX­€#ÔSee,€e.g.óó,€Cal.€Penal€Code€ðð€1376(a)€(West€2004)€(defining€mental€retardation€as€ð ðthe€condition€ofÐ ° Ðsignificantly€subaverage€general€intellectual€functioning€existing€concurrently€with€deficits€in€adaptive€behavior). ÖÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ô530€U.S.€466€(2000)Ô‡X­Xòôâ Ô.Ô#†ôâ òXX­“#Ô RÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àInterestingly,€however,€during€both€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€trialÐ ° Ðthe€petitioner€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Phillip€J.€Murphy,€a€clinical€psychologist,€stating€that€the€petitionerððs€fullÐ tÄ Ðscale€I.Q.€was€ninety„one.€€òòHowell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CR„00200,€1997€WL€746438,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Dec.Ð 8ˆ Ð3,€1997).€€ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ ‡Ý ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X­Xòôâ Ô€òòÔ#†ôâ òXX­€#ÔSee,€e.g.óó,€Ky.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€532.130(2)€(2004)€(requiring€ð ðan€intelligence€quotient€(I..Q.)€of€seventy€(70)Ð ° Ðor€belowðð€to€be€considered€mentally€retarded);€òòMurphy€v.€Stateóó,€54€P.3d€556,€568€(Okla.€Crim.€App.€2002)€(requiringÐ œì Ðdefendant€claiming€mental€retardation€to€show€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€or€below€ð ðas€reflected€by€at€least€oneðð€scientificallyÐ `° Ðrecognized€test). àÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAriz.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€13„703€(West€2001);€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòRingóó,€536€U.S.€at€592„593. êÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòVan€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ôóó,€66€S.W.3d€at€792;€òòAtkinsóó,€536€U.S.€at€321. 8Ý ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWith€all€due€respect€to€the€trial€court€and€Chief€Justice€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ôððs€dissent,€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,€filedÐ ° Ðalong€with€the€petition€to€reopen€post„conviction€proceedings,€clearly€stated,€in€pertinent€part:Ð tÄ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Howell€is€mentally€retarded€as€indicated€by€his€Full€Scale€IQ€of€73€on€the€WAIS„III,€his€Stanford€Ð üL ÐÔ_ÔBinetÔ_Ô„Fourth€Edition€Composite€(standard€score)€of€62,€and€his€Comprehensive€Test€of€NonverbalÐ À ÐIntelligence€IW€of€67.€€All€of€these€scores€meet€the€criteria€for€significantly€Ô_ÔsubaverageÔ_Ô€generalÐ „Ô Ðintellectual€functioning€as€evidenced€by€an€intelligence€quotient€(IQ)€of€73€or€below€when€the€standardÐ H ˜ Ðerror€of€measurement€is€considered.€€€(Affidavit€of€Ô_ÔDr.GrantÔ_Ô.,€at€ðð€22.)Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àMr.€Howell€has€significant€deficits€in€adaptive€behavior.€€For€example,€communication€skills€measuredÐ ” ä  Ðby€Oral€and€Written€Language€Scales€placed€his€listening€Comprehension€skills€at€a€standard€scoreÐ X ¨  Ðof€69€(second€percentile),€Oral€Expression€standard€score€68€(second€percentile)€and€an€OralÐ  l  ÐComposite€standard€score€of€66€(first€percentile)€are€significantly€impaired.€€(Affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,Ð à 0  Ðat€ðð23).Фô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHis€performance€on€the€Managing€Money€Ô_ÔsubtestÔ_Ô€of€the€Independent€Living€Scale€placed€his€abilityÐ ,|  Ðto€manage€money,€do€monetary€calculations,€pay€bills€and€take€precautions€with€moneyò ò€ó óat€a€standardÐ ð@  Ðscore€of€55.€€Mr.€Howellððs€performance€on€these€tests€indicate€his€functional€academic€skills€areò òÐ ¶   Ðó ósignificantly€impaired.€€(Affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,€at€ðð€24).аРР ÐÌà8  àHis€performance€on€the€Independent€Living€Skills€test€placed€his€adaptive€skills€at€a€Standard€scoreÐ 8ˆ Ðof€61€(.9€percentile)€which€is€clearly€within€the€retarded€range€for€adaptive€behavior€and€meets€theÐ üL Ðcriteria€as€set€forth€by€the€Ô_ÔAAMRÔ_Ô.€€(Affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,€at€ðð€25).ÐÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àMr.€Howellððs€mental€retardation€manifested€within€the€developmental€period€as€noted€in€his€schoolÐ H ˜ Ðrecords€and€developmental€history€where€there€are€numerous€indications€of€mental€retardation.€Mr.Ð  \ ÐHowell€failed€and€repeated€the€first€grade.€€In€the€second€grade,€Mr.€Howell€was€passed€to€the€thirdÐ Ð  Ðgrade€in€spite€of€receiving€three€Dððs€and€three€Fððs.€€By€the€fourth€grade,€Mr.€Howellððs€grades€includedÐ ” ä  Ðsix€Fððs€and€eight€Dððs.€€He€received€a€ð ðsocial€promotionðð€to€the€fifth€grade.€€He€continued€to€struggleÐ X ¨  Ðthrough€school€until€he€arrived€at€high€school.€€Mr.€Howell€failed€and€repeated€the€ninth€grade,€onlyÐ  l  Ðto€fail€a€second€time.€€Rather€than€attempt€grade€nine€a€third€time,€Mr.€Howell€did€not€return€to€school.€Ð à 0  ÐAt€the€end€of€his€second€attempt€at€grade€nine,€Mr.€Howell€was€ranked€105òòthóó€in€a€class€of€106.€Ð ¤ô  Ð(Affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,€at€ðð€21).Ðh¸ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHis€[Mr.€Howellððs]€school€records€and€his€developmental€history€clearly€indicate€he€was€mentallyÐ ð@  Ðretarded€before€the€age€of€18.€€(Affidavit€of€Dr.€Grant,€at€ðð€26).д Ð Ð  Ðò òÌó ó òÝ ƒR#’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔChief€Justice€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ôððs€dissent€asserts€that€the€trial€court€ð ðscrupulouslyðð€followed€the€mandates€of€òòVan€Ô_ÔTranÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðóóand€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„203€in€reaching€its€conclusion€that€the€petitioner€had€not€made€a€primaÐ tÄ Ðfacie€showing€of€mental€retardation.€€Ô‡¼T‘»òôâ Ô×Ã*×× C ×Ô#†ôâ ò»¼T‘þ#Ô€This€dissent€concludes€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€itÐ 8ˆ Ðdismissed€the€petition€to€reopen.€€We€note,€however,€that€a€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€if€it€applies€ð ðan€incorrect€legalÐ üL Ðstandard,€or€Ô_Ôreache[sÔ_Ô]€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€[causes]€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðð€Ð À ÐòòÔ_ÔSpicerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,€443€(Tenn.€2000)(citations€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€never€indicated€whatÐ „Ô Ðlegal€standard€it€had€applied€in€making€its€determination€that€the€affidavits€submitted€in€support€of€the€petition€to€reopenÐ H ˜ Ðpost„conviction€proceedings€had€failed€to€set€forth€a€prima€facie€showing€of€mental€retardation.€€Therefore,€we€find€itÐ  \ Ðimpossible€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€without€knowing€whether€it€applied€the€ð ðclear€andÐ Ð  Ðconvincing€evidenceðð€standard€or€the€ð ðÔ_ÔcolorableÔ_Ô€claimðð€standard€in€evaluating€the€petition.€€ \Ý ƒRß $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ôâõ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€dissent€concludes€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€dismissed€the€petition€to€reopen.€Ð ° ÐWe€note,€however,€that€a€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€if€it€applies€ð ðan€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€Ô_Ôreache[sÔ_Ô]€a€decisionÐ tÄ Ðwhich€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€[causes]€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔSpicerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,Ð 8ˆ Ð443€(Tenn.€2000)(citations€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€never€indicated€what€legal€standard€it€had€applied€inÐ üL Ðmaking€its€determination.€€Therefore,€we€find€it€impossible€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÐ À Ðwithout€knowing€whether€it€applied€the€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€standard€or€the€ð ðÔ_ÔcolorableÔ_Ô€claimðð€standard€inÐ „Ô Ðevaluating€the€petition.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|I2#’$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ ò»»Ô€€ d(|3G‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T‘»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T‘»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼T‘»»»ÔÑ8€­XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€@¸ÑÑ€@¸ÑÑ€@¸Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îR¨î»¼T‘ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼T‘»îîR¨?#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€7,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X­X»¼T‘ÔÌÔ#†¼T‘»XX­ #Ôò òMICHAEL€WAYNE€HOWELL€€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ó óÔ‡X­X»¼T‘ÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼T‘»XX­–#ÔÔ‡X­X»¼T‘ÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐÔ#†¼T‘»XX­í#ÔÔ‡X­X»¼T‘ÔCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„14334€€€€€€Hon.€Otis€Ô_ÔHiggsÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„01056„SC„R11„Ô_ÔPDÔ_Ô€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_Ô€Ô#†¼T‘»XX­#ÔòòóóÔ‡X­X»¼T‘ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X­XXX­ÔÓ=€T‘»Ð»dÐd=Óà  àÔ#† ¼T‘»X X­`#ÔÔ€ X­X» ¼T‘ÔThis€case€comes€before€us€on€a€motion€to€reopen€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€TheÐ P  Ðpetitioner€alleges€that€he€is€mentally€retarded€as€defined€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„Ð <Œ Ð203(a)€(2003),€and€therefore€ineligible€for€the€death€penalty€under€òòState€v.€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ôóó,€66€S.W.3d€790Ð (x Ð(Tenn.€2001)€and€òòAtkins€v.€Virginiaóó,€536€U.S.€304€(2002).€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€findingÐ d Ðthat€the€petitioner€failed€to€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€mental€retardation€sufficient€to€supportÐ P Ðreopening€his€post„conviction€proceeding,€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€denial.€€We€reverseÐ ì< Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals,€holding€that€under€the€specific€facts€of€this€case,€in€which€a€petitioner€is€able,Ð Ø( Ðfor€the€first€time€in€his€motion€to€reopen€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€to€claim€ineligibilityÐ Ä Ðfor€the€death€penalty€due€to€mental€retardation€under€òòVan€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€óóor€òòAtkinsóó,€the€motion€should€beÐ ° Ðconsidered€under€the€ð ðÔ_ÔcolorableÔ_Ô€claimðð€evidentiary€standard€rather€than€the€ð ðclear€and€convincingððÐ œì Ðstandard.€€We€also€hold€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„203(a)€(2003)€clearly€andÐ ˆØ Ðunambiguously€requires€the€defendant€to€have€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€or€below€to€be€considered€mentallyÐ tÄ Ðretarded.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€hearing€set€out€aÐ `° ÐÔ_ÔcolorableÔ_Ô€claim,€thus€entitling€him€to€an€evidentiary€hearing,€without€a€jury,€on€the€issue€of€mentalÐ L œ Ðretardation.€Ô#†X­XX X­ü#ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓðÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÐ #`" ÐReversed€and€Remandedó ó€Ð ü#L# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€E.€Riley€Andersonóó€andòò€Ð Ø%(!% ÐÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€Jr.,€JJ.,€joined.€€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.,€óóand€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€J.,€eachÐ Ä&"& Ðfiled€concurring€and€dissenting€opinions.Ð °'#' ÐÌPaul€R.€Ô_ÔBotteiÔ_Ô€and€Kelley€J.€Henry,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€Wayne€Howell.Ð ˆ)Ø$) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Jennifer€L.Ð `+°&+ ÐSmith,€Senior€Counsel,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L,œ', ÐÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_ ÔÓÒÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ œì ÐÌò òÓ=€T‘»Ð»d»Ð»d=ÓBackgroundòòó óÐ tÄ ÐÌóóÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner,€Michael€Wayne€Howell,€was€convicted€of€grand€larceny€and€felony€murder,Ð L œ Ðand€on€September€26,€1989,€was€sentenced€to€death.€€We€affirmed€the€conviction€and€sentence€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeath,€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€and€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€deniedÐ $ t Ðhis€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€òòHowell€v.€Tennesseeóó,€510€U.S.€1215€(1994).€€Petitioner€timely€filedÐ  ` Ða€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court,€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ü L  ÐAppeals€affirmed€that€denial.€€òòHowell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CR„00200,€1997€WL€746438€(Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCrim.€App.€Dec.€3,€1997).€€Petitioner€filed€his€first€motion€to€reopen€the€petition€for€post„convictionÐ Ô$  Ðrelief€on€July€9,€1999,€challenging€the€definition€of€reasonable€doubt€instruction,€the€constitutionalityÐ À  Ðof€using€an€after„occurring€conviction€as€an€aggravating€circumstance,€and€the€effectiveness€of€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court,Ð ˜è  Ðand€this€Court€denied€the€petitionerððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àPetitioner€filed€this€second€motion€to€reopen€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€onÐ \¬ ÐDecember€3,€2002,€arguing€that€because€he€is€mentally€retarded€his€death€sentence€violates€the€stateÐ H˜ Ðand€federal€constitutions€under€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€66€S.W.3d€790€(Tenn.€2001),€and€òòAtkins€v.Ð 4„ ÐVirginiaóó,€536€U.S.€304€(2002).€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€had€not€madeÐ  p Ða€prima€facie€showing€that€he€is€mentally€retarded€and€in€applying€an€incorrect€standard€of€review.€Ð  \ ÐÌÌà  àIn€support€of€his€motion€to€reopen,€the€petitioner€filed€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Daniel€Grant,€aÐ Ð  Ðlicensed€psychologist€and€board€certified€clinical€neuropsychologist€who€evaluated€the€petitioner.€Ð ¼  ÐDr.€Grant€testified€by€affidavit€that€he€conducted€a€clinical€interview€and€administered€a€series€ofÐ ¨ø Ðtests€and€procedures€to€assess€the€petitionerððs€level€of€intelligence,€adaptive€functioning,€languageÐ ”ä Ðskills,€and€memory€functioning.€€He€also€reviewed€numerous€records€pertaining€to€the€petitioner.€Ð €Ð ÐDr.€Grant€testified€that,€because€an€I.Q.€score€is€generally€thought€to€involve€an€error€of€measurementÐ l¼ Ðof€approximately€five€points,€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€is€considered€to€represent€a€band€or€zone€of€sixty„Ð X ¨ Ðfive€to€seventy„five.€€Dr.€Grant€stated€that€on€the€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scale€„€Third€EditionÐ D!” Ð(ð ðWAIS„IIIðð),€the€petitioner€obtained€a€verbal€I.Q.€of€seventy„five,€a€performance€I.Q.€of€seventy„Ð 0"€  Ðfive,€and€a€full€scale€I.Q.€of€seventy„three;€on€the€Stanford„Binet€Intelligence€Test€„€Fourth€Edition,Ð #l! Ðhe€achieved€a€composite€score€of€sixty„two;€and€on€the€Comprehensive€Test€of€NonverbalÐ $X" ÐIntelligence€(ð ðCTONIðð),€he€had€a€nonverbal€I.Q.€of€sixty„seven,€a€pictorial€nonverbal€I.Q.€of€seventy,Ð ô$D # Ðand€a€geometric€nonverbal€I.Q.€of€sixty„eight.€€Dr.€Grant€stated€that€it€was€his€opinion,€to€aÐ à%0!$ Ðreasonable€degree€of€psychological€certainty,€that€the€petitionerððs€level€of€intellectual€functioningÐ Ì&"% Ðis€within€the€retarded€range€of€intelligence.€€Dr.€Grant€further€said€that€the€petitionerððs€mentalÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âretardation€manifested€within€the€developmental€period€and€also€that€the€petitioner€has€significantÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÑ@¸Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñdeficits€in€adaptive€behavior.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âÌà  àWithout€holding€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€motion,€findingÐ ˆØ Ðthat,€even€taking€the€petitionerððs€allegations€as€true,€he€did€not€meet€the€statutory€criteria€for€mentalÐ tÄ Ðretardation.€€The€trial€court€held:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„203(a)(1)€specifically€states€that€sub€averageÐ 8 ˆ Ðintellectual€functioning€is€evidenced€by€a€functional€intelligence€I.Q.€of€seventy€(70)Ð $ t Ðor€below.€€This€statute€does€not€in€any€way€set€forth€that€and€[sic]€I.Q.€of€seventy€isÐ  ` Ðconsidered€to€represent€a€band€or€zone€of€65€to€75.€€T.C.A.€ðð€3[9]„13„203(a)(1)€isÐ ü L  Ðclear€and€unambiguous€and€there€is€no€need€to€debate€any€further€interpretation.€€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌ(citing€òòState€v.€Dellingeróó,€79€S.W.3d€458€(Tenn.€2002);€òòJackson€v.€Gen.€Motors€Corp.óó,€60€S.W.3dÐ À  Ð800,€804€(Tenn.€2001)).€€The€trial€court€found€that€all€three€of€the€petitionerððs€I.Q.€scores€on€theÐ ¬ü  ÐWAIS„III€were€higher€than€the€score€of€seventy€or€below€required€to€prove€mental€retardation.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court€held:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  à[T]he€Petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€the€statutory€requirements€set€forth€in€TennesseeÐ \¬ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€39„13„203,€adopted€by€the€Court€in€òòVan€Tranóó.€€He€does€not€haveÐ H˜ Ðan€I.Q.€of€70€or€below,€he€has€not€manifested€the€requisite€deficits€in€adaptiveÐ 4„ Ðbehavior,€nor€has€he€put€forth€proof€that€mental€retardation€manifested€itself€beforeÐ  p Ðthe€age€of€18.׃" ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€Petitioner€has€failed€to€make€a€prima€facie€case€that€he€wasÐ  \ Ðmentally€retarded€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offenses€for€which€he€was€convicted.€Ð ° ÐHe€does€not€qualify€as€a€mentally€retarded€defendant€in€accordance€with€the€criteriaÐ œì Ðset€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„203,€and€as€such,€his€death€penaltyÐ ˆØ Ðis€not€unconstitutional.€€This€Motion€to€Re„Open€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€ReliefÐ tÄ Ðis€without€merit€and€should€be€dismissed€without€the€benefit€of€a€hearing.€€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court,€and€we€granted€the€petitionerÐ 8 ˆ Ðpermission€to€appeal.Ð $ t ÐÌò òÓ  ÓAnalysisó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÓÁ,Óà  àIn€1990,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€enacted€legislation€prohibiting€the€execution€ofÐ Ô$  Ðmentally€retarded€individuals.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203€(2003).€€In€2001€this€Court€held€thatÐ À  Ðthe€statute€was€not€intended€by€the€General€Assembly€to€be€given€retroactive€application.€€òòVan€TranÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Stateóó,€6€S.W.3d€790,€798„799€(Tenn.€2001).€€€€Therefore,€as€the€petitioner€in€òòVan€Tranóó€had€beenÐ ˜è  Ðconvicted€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€statute,€he€could€not€rely€upon€the€statute€for€relief.€€òòId.óó€atÐ „Ô  Ð799.€€However,€we€also€held€in€òòVan€Tranóó€tòòóóhat€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€individuals€violatedÐ pÀ Ðconstitutional€prohibitions€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€òòId.óó€at€811.€€In€addition,€whileÐ \¬ Ðrecognizing€that€the€statute€did€not€protect€those€persons€convicted€prior€to€its€enactment,€this€CourtÐ H˜ Ðheld€that€this€newly€recognized€constitutional€right€ð ðwarrants€retroactive€application€to€cases€onÐ 4„ Ðcollateral€review.ðð€€òòóó66€S.W.3d€at€811.€€Subsequent€to€our€decision€in€òòVan€Tranóó,€the€United€StatesÐ  p ÐSupreme€Court€similarly€held€in€òòAtkins€v.€Virginiaóó€that€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€personsÐ  \ Ðis€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€prohibited€by€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€536€U.S.€304,€321€(2002).€ò òÐ øH ÐÐ ä4 Ðà  àòòó óVan€Tranóó,€just€as€the€case€before€us€today,€involved€a€petitioner€who€had€been€convicted€priorÐ ° Ðto€enactment€of€the€statute,€but€who€was€now€seeking€post„€conviction€relief€based€upon€his€claimÐ œì Ðof€mental€retardation€and€our€holding€that€executing€mentally€retarded€individuals€wasÐ ˆØ Ðunconstitutional.€€We€recognized€that,€under€the€statutory€scheme€for€obtaining€post„convictionÐ tÄ Ðrelief,€reopening€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€permissible€if€the€claim€ð ðis€based€upon€theÐ `° Ðruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€that€was€not€recognized€at€the€time€ofÐ L œ Ðtrial,€if€retrospective€application€of€that€right€is€required.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„117(a)(1)Ð 8 ˆ Ð(2003);€òòVan€Tran€óó6€S.W.3d€at€811„812.€Therefore,€in€òòVan€Tranóó,€we€directed€the€trial€court€to€ð ðhearÐ $ t Ðthe€petitionerððs€motion€to€reopen€and€make€a€determination€as€to€the€petitionerððs€alleged€mentalÐ  ` Ðretardation.ðð€€66€S.W.3d€at€812.€€We€concluded€that€although€section€39„13„203€did€not€applyÐ ü L  Ðretroactively€to€the€petitionerððs€case,€the€appropriate€criteria€for€evaluating€his€claim€of€mentalÐ è 8  Ðretardation€were€those€set€forth€within€the€statute.€òòVan€Tranóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€812.€€However,€an€issueÐ Ô$  Ðwe€did€not€address€in€òòVan€Tran€óówas€the€appropriate€standard€by€which€the€trial€court€would€evaluateÐ À  Ðthe€petitionerððs€claim€under€those€criteria€to€determine€if€he€had€pled€a€prima€facie€case.€€That€is€theÐ ¬ü  Ðissue€we€must€now€address€in€the€present€case€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€hasÐ ˜è  Ðalleged€a€prima€facie€case€of€mental€retardation€to€support€reopening€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ „Ô  Ðrelief.׃$×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Respectfully,€in€our€view,€neither€of€the€dissenting€opinions€comes€to€grips€with€this€issue.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€presents€several€arguments€in€this€regard,€and€we€will€address€each€in€turn.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðthrust€of€these€arguments€can€be€summarized€as€focusing€on€two€main€€points:€1)€The€definition€ofÐ 4„ Ðmental€retardation€applied€to€capital€defendants€has€been€interpreted€too€rigidly€by€the€lower€courts;Ð  p Ðand€2)€The€statutory€dictates€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act€have€operated€to€deprive€theÐ  \ Ðpetitioner€of€a€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€his€claim€that€he€is€ineligible€for€the€death€penalty€due€toÐ øH Ðmental€retardation.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àPetitioner€argues€that€the€requirement€of€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€or€below,€as€contained€in€theÐ ¼  Ðdefinition€of€mental€retardation€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„203(a)€(2003),€shouldÐ ¨ø Ðnot€be€interpreted€as€a€ð ðbright„lineðð€rule,€but€rather€should€be€construed€to€make€allowance€forÐ ”ä Ðstandard€errors€of€measurement€in€the€testing€process€so€that€a€person€with€an€I.Q.€score€aboveÐ €Ð Ðseventy€could,€in€some€circumstances,€still€be€considered€mentally€retarded.€€Additionally,€theÐ l¼ Ðpetitioner€argues€that€he€presented€a€prima€facie€showing€of€mental€retardation€in€his€motion€toÐ X ¨ Ðreopen€post„conviction€proceedings,€but€that€the€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€standard€of€reviewÐ D!” Ðand€subsequently€denied€the€motion€without€benefit€of€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€He€contends€byÐ 0"€  Ðapplying€a€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€standard€in€reviewing€his€motion,€rather€than€theÐ ° Ðð ðcolorable€claimðð€standard€found€in€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€28€section€6(B)(6),€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€denied€him€due€process.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€definition€of€mental€retardation€found€in€TennesseeÐ `° ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„13„203(a)€clearly€and€unambiguously€requires€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€orÐ L œ Ðbelow.€€Therefore,€the€statute€should€not€be€interpreted€to€make€allowance€for€any€standard€error€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðmeasurement€or€other€circumstances€whereby€a€person€with€an€I.Q.€above€seventy€could€beÐ $ t Ðconsidered€mentally€retarded.Ð  ` ÐÌ€€€€€€€The€State€further€argues€that€a€different€standard€applies€when€evaluating€a€motion€to€reopenÐ è 8  Ðpost„conviction€proceedings€rather€than€an€original€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€StateÐ Ô$  Ðasserts€that€the€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€standard,€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ À  Ðsection€40„30„117(a)(4)€is€the€correct€standard€in€this€instance€and€was€appropriately€applied€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€court.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àòòò òTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„203(a)€Ð pÀ Ðand€the€Definition€of€Mental€Retardationó óÐ X¨ ÐóóÓàFÓÌà  àWe€turn€first€to€petitionerððs€argument€that€the€definition€of€mental€retardation,€as€containedÐ ,| Ðin€the€applicable€portion€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€has€been€misinterpreted€by€the€lower€courts.€€AsÐ h Ðit€applies€to€a€defendant€in€a€capital€prosecution,€the€term€mental€retardation€is€defined€by€the€stateÐ T Ðlegislature€as€follows:òòóóÐ ð@ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòóóÐ Ü, Ðà8  à(1)€Significantly€subaverage€general€intellectual€functioning€as€evidenced€by€aÐ È Ðfunctional€intelligence€quotient€(I.Q.)€of€seventy€or€below;€andдРР Ðà8  à(2)€Deficits€in€adaptive€behavior;€andРðÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€The€mental€retardation€must€have€been€manifested€during€the€developmentalÐ ŒÜ Ðperiod€,€or€by€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age.ÐxÈÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(a)€(2003).€€Ð P   ÐÌà  àThis€definition€sets€out€a€three„prong€test€to€be€utilized€by€a€court€in€determining€whether€aÐ ("x  Ðcapital€defendant€is€mentally€retarded€and,€therefore,€ineligible€for€the€death€penalty.€€The€petitionerÐ #d! Ðargues€that€the€statuteððs€inclusion€of€an€I.Q.€score€of€seventy€as€a€ð ðbright„lineðð€cutoff€score€isÐ $P" Ðcontrary€to€the€prevailing€views€of€mental€retardation€in€the€field€of€psychology.€€The€petitionerððsÐ ì$< # Ðwitness,€Dr.€Grant,€stated€in€his€affadavit€that€an€I.Q.€score€will€involve€an€error€measurement€ofÐ Ø%(!$ Ðapproximately€five€points€and,€therefore,€the€requirement€of€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€or€below,€as€containedÐ Ä&"% Ðin€the€Tennessee€statute,€should€be€interpreted€as€representing€a€range€of€scores€between€sixty„fiveÐ °'#& Ðand€seventy„five€or€below.€Ð œ(ì#' ÐÌà  àWithout€question,€mental€retardation€is€a€difficult€condition€to€accurately€define.€€The€UnitedÐ t*Ä%) ÐStates€Supreme€Court,€in€òòAtkins€v.€Virginiaóó,€admitted€as€much,€stating:€ð ð[t]o€the€extent€there€isÐ `+°&* ÐÑ@¸Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñserious€disagreement€about€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€offenders,€it€is€in€determining€whichÐ ° Ðoffenders€are€in€fact€retarded.ðð€€536€U.S.€at€317.€€Generally€accepted€definitions€within€the€scientificÐ œì Ðcommunity€will€no€doubt€be€refined€as€our€knowledge€in€this€area€advances.€€At€present€however,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€most€widely€recognized€definitions€of€mental€retardation€include€two€basic€characteristics:Ð tÄ Ðsignificantly€subaverage€intellectual€functioning€accompanied€by€related€limitations€in€two€or€moreÐ `° Ðadaptive€skill€areas€(such€as€self„care,€communication,€or€social€skills),€and€manifestation€of€theÐ L œ Ðcondition€before€age€18.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€question€becomes€how€to€provide€valid€guidelines€to€be€used€by€the€courts€inÐ  ` Ðdetermining€when€a€defendantððs€intellectual€functioning€is€ð ðsubaverage.ðð€€In€òòAtkinsóó,€the€UnitedÐ ü L  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€left€it€to€the€individual€states€to€adopt€appropriate€definitions€of€mentalÐ è 8  Ðretardation.€€The€Court€stated€that€ð ð[n]ot€all€people€who€claim€to€be€mentally€retarded€will€be€soÐ Ô$  Ðimpaired€as€to€fall€within€the€range€of€mentally€retarded€offenders€about€whom€there€is€a€nationalÐ À  Ðconsensus.ðð€€òòAtkinsóó,€536€U.S.€at€317.€€Therefore,€the€Court€left€ð ðto€the€State[s]€the€task€of€developingÐ ¬ü  Ðappropriate€ways€to€enforce€the€constitutional€restriction€upon€[their]€execution€of€sentences.ðð€òòId.óóÐ ˜è  Ð(quoting€òòFord€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€399,€405€(U.S.€1986)).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhile€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€score€of€seventy€should€be€interpreted,€under€our€statute,Ð \¬ Ðto€include€a€range€of€scores€between€sixty„five€and€seventy„five,€we€disagree.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àA€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€that€if€the€language€of€the€statute€is€clear€andÐ  p Ðunambiguous,€then€a€court€shall€apply€its€plain€meaning.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoarman€v.€Jaynesóó,€109€S.W.3d€286,Ð  \ Ð291€(Tenn.€2003);€òòLavin€v.€Jordanóó,€16€S.W.3d€362,€365€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€the€present€case,€we€findÐ øH Ðthe€language€of€the€statute€perfectly€clear€and€unambiguous€ð!ð€to€be€considered€mentally€retarded,€aÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€must€have€an€I.Q.€of€seventy€or€below.€€The€statute€makes€no€reference€to€a€standard€errorÐ Ð  Ðof€measurement€in€the€test€scores€nor€consideration€of€any€range€of€scores€above€the€score€ofÐ ¼  Ðseventy.€€Therefore,€we€decline€to€ð ðread€inðð€such€provisions,€as€the€petitioner€would€have€us€to€do,Ð ¨ø Ðin€order€to€extend€the€coverage€of€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€60€S.W.3d€800,Ð ”ä Ð804€(Tenn.€2001)€(ð ðLegislative€intent€or€purpose€is€to€be€ascertained€primarily€from€the€natural€andÐ €Ð Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€that€would€limit€orÐ l¼ Ðextend€the€meaning€of€the€language.ðð)€(quoting€òòHamblen€County€Educ.€Assððn€v.€Hamblen€CountyÐ X ¨ ÐBd.€of€Educ.óó,€892€S.W.2d€428,€431€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)).€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€legislature,€if€it€had€desired,€was€free€to€include€provisions€establishing€a€range€of€I.Q.Ð #l! Ðscores€that€would€take€into€account€measurement€errors€in€the€testing€process.€€It€could€also€haveÐ $X" Ðchosen€to€exclude€any€reference€to€specific€scores€altogether.€€However,€it€did€neither.€€Instead,€itÐ ô$D # Ðenacted€the€current€statute€which€provides€a€clear€and€objective€guideline€to€be€followed€by€courtsÐ à%0!$ Ðwhen€applying€the€three„prong€test€as€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€39„13„203(a)€(2003).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àFurther€evidence€that€the€legislature€intended€to€create€such€a€bright€line€rule€may€be€foundÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÑ@¸Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñby€examining€the€statutory€definition€of€mental€retardation€as€applied€in€the€social€services€context.€Ð ° ÐThis€definition,€applicable€to€individuals€seeking€social€services€or€disability€benefits,€is€set€out€inÐ œì ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€33„1„101€(17)€and€provides:€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àð ðMental€retardationðð€means€substantial€limitations€in€functioning:€€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(A)€As€shown€by€significantly€sub„average€intellectual€functioning€that€existsÐ L œ Ðconcurrently€with€€related€imitations€in€two€(2)€or€more€of€the€following€adaptiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðskill€areas:€communication,€self„care,€home€living,€social€skills,€community€use,€self„Ð $ t Ðdirection,€health€and€safety,€functional€academics,€leisure,€and€work;€andÐ `Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€That€are€manifested€before€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„1„101(17)€(2003€Supp.)Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€is€evident,€this€statute€contains€no€reference€to€numerical€I.Q.€scores€and€is€therefore€lessÐ ¬ü  Ðrestrictive€than€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„203(a).€Additionally,€section€33„1„101(17)Ð ˜è  Ðwas€in€existence€at€the€time€the€legislature€enacted€section€39„13„203(a).€€Therefore,€we€mustÐ „Ô  Ðpresume€the€legislature€was€aware€of€section€33„1„101(17),€yet€purposely€chose€to€adopt€a€differentÐ pÀ Ðdefinition€of€mental€retardation€to€be€applied€in€the€criminal€context.€€That€the€two€statutes€bothÐ \¬ Ðtouch€upon€the€same€subject€matter,€yet€contain€dissimilar€provisions,€is€indicative€of€a€legislativeÐ H˜ Ðintent€to€have€a€different,€more€restrictive,€standard€apply€to€defendants€in€a€capital€prosecution.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðlegislatureððs€decision€to€demarcate€an€I.Q.€score€of€seventy€or€below€in€title€39,€yet€not€to€do€so€inÐ  p Ðtitle€33,€clearly€evidences€this€differing€legislative€intent€with€respect€to€the€two€sections€of€the€code.€Ð  \ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€958€S.W.2d€736,€739€(1997)€(stating€that€ð ð[w]hen€one€statute€contains€a€givenÐ øH Ðprovision,€the€omission€of€the€same€provision€from€a€similar€statute€is€significant€to€show€a€differentÐ ä4 Ðintent€existed.ðð)€(citing€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€654€S.W.2d€688,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWhile€some€states€have€adopted€definitions€of€mental€retardation€that€do€not€include€specificÐ ¨ø Ðnumerical€I.Q.€scores,׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€other€states€employ€definitions€that,€similar€to€Tennessee,€include€specificÐ ”ä ÐI.Q.€scores€as€a€determinative€factor.׃@×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòóóTherefore,€while€there€appears€to€be€no€general€nationalÐ €Ð Ðconsensus€regarding€the€use€of€numerical€I.Q.€scores€as€a€factor€in€determining€mental€retardation,Ð l¼ Ðthe€use€of€such€scores€to€establish€a€bright„line€cutoff€point€for€making€this€determination€is€notÐ X ¨ Ðcontrary€to€either€the€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòAtkins€v.€Virginia€óóor€with€those€definitions€ofÐ D!” Ðmental€retardation€adopted€by€several€other€states.€€The€Tennessee€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€adoptÐ 0"€  Ða€score€of€seventy€or€below€as€a€determinative€factor€in€finding€a€person€mentally€retarded€forÐ #l! Ðpurposes€of€carrying€out€a€capital€sentence.€€Based€upon€our€analysis,€we€see€no€reason€to€questionÐ $X" Ðthe€validity€of€such€an€approach.€€Ð ô$D # Їà  àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€inÐ ° Ðrelying€solely€upon€the€results€of€the€WAIS„III€I.Q.€test€in€making€their€determinations,€while€failingÐ œì Ðto€even€mention€the€other€two€I.Q.€tests€which€he€was€administered.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€statute€does€not€provide€a€clear€directive€regarding€which€particular€test€or€testingÐ `° Ðmethod€is€to€be€used.€€The€WAIS„III€test€has€been€called€ð ðthe€standard€instrument€in€the€UnitedÐ L œ ÐStates€for€assessing€intellectual€functioning.ðð€€òòAtkinsóó,€536€U.S.€at€n.5.€€However,€there€is€nothingÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€the€record€to€indicate€that€other€tests,€such€as€the€Stanford„Binet€Intelligence€Test€„€Fourth€Edition,Ð $ t Ðor€the€CTONI€are€not€also€accurate€I.Q.€tests.€€A€court€may€certainly€give€more€weight€to€one€test,Ð  ` Ðbut€should€do€so€only€after€fully€analyzing€and€considering€all€evidence€presented.€€As€we€willÐ ü L  Ðexplain€more€fully€herein,€under€the€particular€facts€of€the€present€case,€we€hold€the€petitionerððsÐ è 8  Ðmotion€should€be€reviewed€applying€the€colorable€claim€standard,€€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28€ðð€2(H),€Ð Ô$  Ðwhich€entails€determining€whether€€the€claim,€if€taken€as€true,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÐ À  Ðpetitioner,€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€€A€review€under€this€standard€would€necessarily€include€givingÐ ¬ü  Ðfull€and€fair€consideration€to€all€tests€administered€to€the€petitioner.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óà@@¡¡ìàò òòòAppropriate€Standard€of€Review€and€Due€Process€Ð pÀ ÐUnder€the€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Actóóó óÐ X¨ ÐÌÓ”vÓà  àWe€now€address€petitionerððs€second€main€point€„€that€the€statutory€dictates€of€the€Post„Ð ,| ÐConviction€Procedures€Act€work€to€deprive€him,€because€of€his€unique€circumstances,€of€a€fairÐ h Ðopportunity€to€litigate€his€claim€that€he€is€mentally€retarded€and€therefore€ineligible€for€capitalÐ T Ðpunishment.Ð ð@ ÐÌà  à€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€recommended,€in€òòCase€v.€Nebraskaóó,€381€U.S.€336€(1965),Ð È Ðthat€the€states€create€post„conviction€procedures€for€addressing€alleged€constitutional€errors€occurringÐ ´ Ðduring€the€conviction€process€in€order€to€supplement€habeas€corpus€remedies.€€The€GeneralÐ  ð ÐAssembly€of€Tennessee€responded€to€that€recommendation€in€1967€by€enacting€the€Post„ConvictionÐ ŒÜ ÐProcedures€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„101€et€seq.€(2003);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845Ð xÈ ÐS.W.2d€204,€206€(Tenn.€1992).Ð d´ ÐÌà  àUnder€the€Act,€a€prisoner€may€file€a€petition€for€post€conviction€relief€with€the€clerk€of€theÐ