Butler v. Stephens
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Opposed MOTION for Relief from Judgment. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEVEN ANTHONY BUTLER,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-2103
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Steven Anthony Butler is a Texas death row inmate.
filed
a
motion
for
relief
from
judgment.
For
the
He has
following
reasons, Butler's motion will be denied.
Background
I .
Butler was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death
for murdering the cashier of a dry cleaning store during the course
of
a
robbery.
The
Texas
Court
of
Criminal
affirmed Butler's conviction and sentence,
Appeals
Butler v.
("TCCA")
State,
790
S.W.2d 661(Tex. Crim. App. 1990), and denied his application for
post-conviction relief, Ex parte Butler, No. 41,121-01 (Tex. Crim.
App. April 28, 1999).
On June 19, 2003, Butler filed a successive
state habeas application arguing that the Eighth Amendment barred
his
execution
because
he
is
mentally
retarded,
see
Atkins
v.
Virginia,
536 U. S.
304
(2002),
along with several other claims.
The TCCA remanded the Atkins claim to the trial court for findings
of fact and conclusions of law, and dismissed the other claims as
an abuse of the writ.
On March 30, 2007, the trial court entered
findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended denying
relief
on
Butler's Atkins
On
claim.
June
27,
2007,
the
adopted those findings and conclusions and denied relief.
day Butler filed his federal habeas petition,
2007,
he filed an amended petition.
TCCA
The same
and on August 30,
On September 4,
2008,
this
Court denied Butler's amended petition but granted a certificate of
appealability on his Atkins claim.
On April 1, 2013, Butler filed this motion for relief from the
judgment of this court under Rule 60(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of
Ci viI
Procedure.
Butler seeks
relief
from that portion of the
judgment denying relief on his Atkins claim.
II.
Rule 60 (b) (6)
Analysis
provides that a court may grant relief from a
judgment for any reason that justifies relief.
Butler notes that
Dr. George Denkowski, who testified as an expert for the State in
Butler's Atkins hearing, has been censured by the Texas State Board
of
Examiners
of
Psychologists
professional standards.
("the
Board")
for
violating
Among the sanctions imposed is a ban on
Denkowski conducting any further evaluations for mental retardation
in criminal proceedings.
Rule 60(b) motion, Appendix 1.
-2-
Butler
now argues that the findings of the Board undermine Denkowski's
conclusions in this case,
and require relief from this Court's
judgment denying relief on Butler's Atkins claim.
As noted in this Court's Memorandum and Order denying Butler's
petition,
requires
under
(1)
Texas
law,
a
diagnosis
of
mental
retardation
significantly sub-average intellectual functioning,
(2) deficits in adaptive functioning, and (3) onset before age 18.
Butler
correctly points
out
that
this
Court's
conclusion
that
Butler failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
state court's
finding that he does not have significantly sub-
average intellectual functioning was unreasonable was based,
large part, on
in
the fact that Denkowski was qualified as an expert
in mental retardation, and his testimony supports the state court's
findings.
This Court felt compelled to do so under the extremely
deferential standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
With the
censure from the Board, Denkowski's opinions are now deserving of
no
weight,
thus
calling
into
serious
question
this
Court's
conclusion on the question of Butler's intellectual functioning.
As
noted
above,
however,
a
showing
requires proof of all three elements:
intellectual functioning,
onset before age 18.
conclusion
that
of mental
retardation
significantly sub-average
deficits in adaptive functioning,
and
In addition to finding that the state court's
Butler
did
not
-3-
have
significantly
sub-average
intellectual
functioning was
reasonable,
this
Court
also
found
reasonable the state court's conclusion that Butler does not have
deficits in adaptive functioning.
Butler now argues that the trial
court's conclusions on this point were also heavily influenced by
Denkowski's opinions.
A review of this Court's previous Memorandum and Order makes
clear that the state habeas court relied on substantial evidence
other
than
Denkowski's
Moreover,
opinion.
this
Court
virtually no weight to Denkowski's opinion on this issue.
this
Court
found
supported by,
that
the
state
court's
among other things,
conclusion
gave
Instead,
was
amply
Butler's trial testimony,
his
employment history, his ability to maintain his personal hygiene,
his ability to form and maintain friendships,
reading
material
found
in
his
Memorandum and Order at 36-49.
not
significantly
functioning,
Butler
impact
still
death
row
and the level of
cell.
See
generally,
Because the Denkowski censure does
the
analysis
fails
to
of
Butler's
demonstrate
that
adaptive
the
state
habeas court's ultimate conclusion that he is not mentally retarded
"was
contrary
to,
or
involved an
unreasonable
application
of,
clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of
the
United
States U
or
(2)
"was
based
on
an
unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
the State court proceeding."
28 U.S.C.
§
2254 (d)
Butler is not entitled to relief from the judgment.
-4-
Therefore,
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
Judgment
Pursuant
to
Federal
Butler's Motion for Relief From
Rule
(Docket Entry No. 42) is DENIED.
of Civil
Procedure
60 (b) (6)
No certificate of appealability
shall issue.
SIGNED at Houston,
Texas,
on this 2~~ day of March,
2014.
,
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?