Wiley v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-DR-01317-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-DR-01317-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-26-2004
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: WILLIAM L. WILEY'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO VACATE DEATH SENTENCE ON THE BASIS OF ATKINS V. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), DENIED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Mental retardation
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Cobb, P.J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Dickinson, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-03-1995
Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew C. Baker
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
Case Number: 3720

Note: William Wiley's Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence on the Basis of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William L. Wiley




JAMES McLAUGHLIN ROBERT B. McDUFF MARK E. FELDMAN TIMOTHY C. HESTER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR.  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Mental retardation

Summary of the Facts: William Wiley was convicted of capital murder while engaged in a robbery and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed, but the case was remanded for resentencing. Wiley was again sentenced to death, and the sentence was affirmed on appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Wiley's death sentence was improper because the sentencing jury was improperly instructed as to the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating circumstance. The case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Wiley was again sentenced to death, and the sentence was affirmed on appeal. Wiley has now filed a successive application for leave to file a motion to vacate the death sentence based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Summary of Opinion Analysis: To proceed in the trial court on the issue of alleged mental retardation, the defendant must produce, at a minimum, an expert who expresses an opinion, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the defendant is mentally retarded, as that term is defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation and/or The American Psychiatric Association and that the defendant has completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II and/or other similar tests, and the defendant is not malingering. Wiley has attached an affidavit from Dr. Grant that his Full Scale IQ of 68 places his level of intelligence within the mentally retarded range and that Wiley meets the other two definitional criteria for mental retardation in that he has deficits in adaptive behavior in at least two defined areas and that the manifestation of mental retardation was by age 18. Wiley attaches school records indicating that he performed poorly throughout school, that he repeated the fifth and sixth grades and that he dropped out after the eighth grade. However, the prior evidence in this case does not support Wiley’s claim that he is retarded. Wiley does not even assert that he has completed the MMPI-II or some similar test to show that he is not malingering. In deciding whether to grant an Atkins hearing, the Court will consider the entire record. The overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that Wiley was not mentally retarded before age 18. The record shows that Wiley was a normal, productive citizen, who was never characterized as “mentally retarded” until such time as being mentally retarded became critically important in the realm of post-conviction relief.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court