panetti
quarterman
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
institutions
division
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
convicted
capital
murder
texas
state
sentenced
death
despite
history
mental
illness
texas
courts
denied
relief
direct
appeal
petitioner
filed
federal
habeas
petition
pursuant
district
fifth
circuit
rejected
claims
denied
certiorari
course
initial
state
federal
proceedings
petitioner
argue
mental
illness
rendered
incompetent
executed
state
trial
set
execution
date
petitioner
filed
motion
texas
law
claiming
first
time
incompetent
executed
mental
illness
trial
judge
denied
motion
without
hearing
texas
criminal
appeals
dismissed
petitioner
appeal
lack
jurisdiction
filed
another
federal
habeas
petition
district
stayed
execution
allow
state
trial
time
consider
evidence
mental
state
state
began
adjudication
petitioner
submitted
motions
requested
inter
alia
competency
hearing
funds
mental
health
expert
indicated
rule
outstanding
motions
received
report
written
experts
appointed
review
petitioner
mental
condition
experts
subsequently
filed
report
concluded
inter
alia
petitioner
ability
understand
reason
executed
without
ruling
outstanding
motions
judge
found
petitioner
competent
closed
case
petitioner
returned
federal
district
seeking
resolution
pending
petition
district
concluded
competency
proceedings
failed
comply
texas
law
constitutionally
inadequate
light
procedural
requirements
mandated
ford
wainwright
held
eighth
amendment
prohibits
inflicting
death
penalty
upon
insane
prisoners
although
therefore
reviewed
petitioner
incompetency
claim
without
deferring
state
finding
competency
nevertheless
granted
relief
finding
petitioner
demonstrated
met
standard
incompetency
fifth
circuit
precedent
explained
petitioner
competent
executed
long
knew
fact
impending
execution
factual
predicate
fifth
circuit
affirmed
held
statutory
authority
adjudicate
claims
raised
petitioner
second
federal
habeas
application
requires
claim
presented
second
successive
application
presented
prior
application
dismissed
state
maintains
failure
petitioner
first
application
raise
incompetency
claim
deprived
district
jurisdiction
results
argument
produce
show
flaws
state
interpretation
second
successive
correct
prisoner
two
options
forgo
opportunity
raise
ford
claim
federal
raise
claim
first
federal
habeas
application
even
though
premature
stewart
dilemma
apply
prisoners
mental
conditions
time
initial
habeas
filing
indicative
incompetency
also
prisoners
including
early
sign
mental
illness
prisoners
risk
deteriorations
mental
state
conscientious
defense
attorneys
obliged
file
unripe
many
cases
meritless
ford
claims
every
application
counterintuitive
approach
add
burden
imposed
courts
applicants
clear
advantage
reasonable
interpretation
suggested
precedents
congress
intend
provisions
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
addressing
second
successive
habeas
petitions
govern
filing
unusual
posture
presented
application
raising
incompetency
claim
filed
soon
claim
ripe
see
supra
conclusion
confirmed
aedpa
purposes
ing
comity
finality
federalism
cockrell
promot
ing
judicial
efficiency
conservation
judicial
resources
lend
ing
finality
state
judgments
within
reasonable
time
day
mcdonough
purposes
practical
effects
holdings
considered
interpreting
aedpa
particularly
petitioners
run
risk
proposed
interpretation
forever
losing
opportunity
federal
review
unexhausted
claims
rhines
weber
finally
argument
case
petitioner
proceeded
manner
considered
abuse
writ
cf
felker
turpin
contrary
suggested
generally
appropriate
prisoner
wait
seeking
resolution
unripe
incompetency
claims
see
supra
pp
state
failed
provide
procedures
petitioner
entitled
constitution
ford
identifies
measures
state
must
provide
prisoner
alleges
incompetency
executed
justice
powell
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
ford
controls
see
marks
constitutes
clearly
established
governing
law
aedpa
purposes
justice
powell
elaborated
prisoner
seeking
stay
execution
made
substantial
threshold
showing
insanity
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
entitle
inter
alia
fair
hearing
including
opportunity
submit
expert
psychiatric
evidence
may
differ
state
psychiatric
examination
procedures
state
provided
petitioner
deficient
reconciled
reasonable
interpretation
ford
rule
uncontested
petitioner
made
substantial
showing
incompetency
also
evident
record
however
state
reached
competency
determination
without
holding
hearing
providing
petitioner
adequate
opportunity
provide
expert
evidence
moreover
strong
argument
violated
state
law
failing
provide
competency
hearing
violation
undermines
reliance
state
might
place
justice
powell
assertion
substantial
leeway
determine
process
best
balances
various
interests
stake
aedpa
federal
may
grant
habeas
relief
relevant
state
adjudication
claim
merits
resulted
decision
involved
unreasonable
application
relevant
federal
law
state
adjudication
dependent
antecedent
unreasonable
application
federal
law
requirement
satisfied
federal
must
resolve
claim
without
deference
aedpa
otherwise
requires
see
wiggins
smith
determined
state
unreasonably
applied
ford
accorded
petitioner
procedures
question
must
consider
petitioner
claim
merits
without
deferring
state
competency
finding
pp
fifth
circuit
employed
improperly
restrictive
test
considered
petitioner
claim
incompetency
merits
pp
fifth
circuit
incompetency
standard
restrictive
afford
prisoner
eighth
amendment
protections
petitioner
experts
district
concluded
although
claims
understand
state
says
wants
execute
murder
mental
problems
resulted
delusion
stated
reason
sham
state
actually
wants
execute
stop
preaching
fifth
circuit
held
based
earlier
decisions
delusions
simply
relevant
whether
prisoner
executed
long
aware
state
identified
link
crime
punishment
inflicted
test
ignores
possibility
even
awareness
exists
gross
delusions
stemming
severe
mental
disorder
may
put
awareness
context
far
removed
reality
punishment
serve
proper
purpose
also
inconsistent
ford
none
principles
set
forth
therein
accord
fifth
circuit
rule
although
ford
opinions
set
forth
precise
competency
standard
reach
express
conclusion
constitution
places
substantive
restriction
state
power
take
life
insane
prisoner
inter
alia
execution
serves
retributive
purpose
might
said
capital
punishment
imposed
potential
make
offender
recognize
last
gravity
crime
allow
community
whole
including
victim
surviving
family
friends
affirm
judgment
prisoner
culpability
serious
ultimate
penalty
must
sought
imposed
potential
recognition
objective
community
vindication
called
question
however
prisoner
awareness
link
crime
punishment
distorted
mental
illness
awareness
crime
punishment
little
relation
understanding
shared
community
whole
prisoner
awareness
state
rationale
execution
rational
understanding
ford
foreclose
inquiry
latter
refuse
consider
evidence
nature
mistake
ford
holding
logic
pp
although
rejects
fifth
circuit
standard
attempt
set
rule
governing
competency
determinations
record
informative
might
developed
district
rejected
standard
thus
finds
difficult
amplify
conclusions
make
precise
proper
allow
charged
overseeing
development
evidentiary
record
initial
opportunity
resolve
petitioner
constitutional
claim
pp
reversed
remanded
kennedy
delivered
opinion
stevens
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
roberts
scalia
alito
joined
scott
louis
panetti
petitioner
nathaniel
quarterman
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
eighth
amendment
prohibits
state
carrying
sentence
death
upon
prisoner
insane
ford
wainwright
prohibition
applies
despite
prisoner
earlier
competency
held
responsible
committing
crime
tried
prior
findings
competency
foreclose
prisoner
proving
incompetent
executed
present
mental
condition
ford
prisoner
makes
requisite
preliminary
showing
current
mental
state
bar
execution
eighth
amendment
applicable
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
entitles
adjudication
determine
condition
determinations
governed
substantive
federal
baseline
competency
set
ford
scott
louis
panetti
referred
petitioner
convicted
sentenced
death
texas
state
state
trial
set
execution
date
petitioner
made
substantial
showing
competent
executed
state
rejected
claim
incompetency
merits
filing
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
district
western
district
texas
petitioner
claimed
mental
condition
barred
execution
eighth
amendment
set
forth
substantive
standard
competency
different
one
advanced
state
prior
proceedings
issue
insufficient
satisfy
procedural
requirements
mandated
ford
state
denied
assertions
argued
addition
federal
courts
lacked
jurisdiction
hear
petitioner
claims
conclude
statutory
authority
adjudicate
claims
petitioner
raises
habeas
application
find
state
failed
provide
procedures
petitioner
entitled
constitution
determine
federal
appellate
employed
improperly
restrictive
test
considered
petitioner
claim
incompetency
merits
therefore
reverse
judgment
appeals
fifth
circuit
remand
case
consideration
morning
petitioner
awoke
dawn
dressed
camouflage
drove
home
estranged
wife
parents
breaking
lock
entered
house
front
wife
daughter
shot
killed
wife
mother
father
took
wife
daughter
hostage
night
surrendering
police
tried
capital
murder
petitioner
sought
represent
ordered
psychiatric
evaluation
indicated
petitioner
suffered
fragmented
personality
delusions
hallucinations
app
evaluation
noted
petitioner
hospitalized
numerous
times
disorders
see
also
evidence
later
revealed
doctors
prescribed
medication
petitioner
mental
disorders
opinion
one
expert
difficult
person
suffering
extreme
psychosis
even
tolerate
see
ca
imagine
anybody
getting
dose
waking
two
three
days
take
kind
medication
close
normal
without
absolutely
put
petitioner
wife
described
one
psychotic
episode
petition
filed
seeking
extraordinary
relief
texas
state
courts
see
explained
petitioner
become
convinced
devil
possessed
home
effort
cleanse
surroundings
petitioner
buried
number
valuables
next
house
engaged
rituals
petitioner
nevertheless
found
competent
tried
waive
counsel
trial
claimed
guilty
reason
insanity
trial
petitioner
engaged
behavior
later
described
standby
counsel
bizarre
scary
according
attorney
petitioner
behavior
private
front
jury
made
evident
suffering
mental
incompetence
see
also
net
effect
dynamic
render
trial
truly
judicial
farce
mockery
evidence
record
moreover
indicate
petitioner
stopped
taking
antipsychotic
medication
months
trial
see
rejection
medical
advice
appears
petitioner
continued
day
one
brief
exception
see
brief
petitioner
according
expert
testimony
failing
take
medication
tends
exacerbate
underlying
mental
dysfunction
see
see
also
app
uncontested
less
two
months
petitioner
sentenced
death
state
trial
found
incompetent
waive
appointment
state
habeas
counsel
see
brief
petitioner
appears
therefore
petitioner
condition
worsened
since
start
trial
jury
found
petitioner
guilty
capital
murder
sentenced
death
petitioner
challenged
conviction
sentence
direct
appeal
state
habeas
proceedings
texas
courts
denied
requests
relief
see
panetti
state
crim
ex
parte
panetti
crim
may
twice
denied
petition
certiorari
panetti
texas
panetti
texas
petitioner
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
district
western
district
texas
claims
rejected
district
panetti
johnson
cause
appeals
fifth
circuit
panetti
cockrell
fed
appx
judgt
order
denied
petition
certiorari
panetti
dretke
among
issues
petitioner
raised
course
state
federal
proceedings
competency
stand
trial
waive
counsel
petitioner
argue
however
mental
illness
rendered
incompetent
executed
october
judge
stephen
ables
judicial
district
gillespie
county
texas
set
petitioner
execution
date
february
see
first
order
setting
execution
cause
order
setting
execution
cause
december
counsel
petitioner
filed
judge
ables
motion
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
pamphlet
petitioner
claimed
first
time
due
mental
illness
incompetent
executed
judge
denied
motion
without
hearing
petitioner
attempted
challenge
ruling
texas
criminal
appeals
dismissed
appeal
lack
jurisdiction
indicating
authority
review
art
determination
trial
determined
prisoner
incompetent
ex
parte
panetti
per
curiam
petitioner
returned
federal
filed
another
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
motion
stay
execution
february
district
stayed
petitioner
execution
allow
state
reasonable
period
time
consider
evidence
petitioner
current
mental
state
order
case
app
state
time
petitioner
renewed
motion
determine
competency
executed
hereinafter
renewed
motion
determine
competency
attached
motion
letter
declaration
two
individuals
psychologist
law
professor
interviewed
petitioner
death
row
february
new
evidence
according
counsel
demonstrated
petitioner
understand
reasons
executed
due
absence
transcript
proceedings
point
altogether
clear
claims
raised
nevertheless
make
necessary
recount
procedural
history
detail
based
docket
entries
parties
filings
appears
following
occurred
state
trial
ordered
parties
participate
telephone
conference
february
discuss
status
case
followed
directive
instructing
counsel
submit
february
names
mental
health
experts
consider
appointing
pursuant
art
see
ibid
trial
determines
defendant
made
substantial
showing
incompetency
shall
order
least
two
mental
health
experts
examine
defendant
also
gave
parties
february
submit
motions
concerning
competency
procedures
advised
hold
another
status
conference
date
defendant
motion
reconsider
cause
pp
mar
hereinafter
motion
reconsider
february
petitioner
filed
motions
related
art
proceedings
included
requests
transcription
proceedings
competency
hearing
comporting
procedural
due
process
requirements
set
forth
ford
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
see
motion
transcribe
proceedings
related
competency
determination
article
cause
motion
ensure
article
final
competency
hearing
comports
procedural
due
process
requirements
ford
cause
hereinafter
motion
ensure
ex
parte
motion
prepayment
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
assist
defense
article
proceedings
cause
february
failed
hold
scheduled
status
conference
petitioner
counsel
called
courthouse
advised
judge
ables
office
day
counsel
called
gillespie
county
district
attorney
explained
judge
informed
state
attorneys
earlier
week
cancelling
conference
set
appoint
mental
health
experts
without
input
parties
motion
reconsider
february
counsel
petitioner
received
order
dated
february
advising
appointing
two
mental
health
experts
pursuant
art
order
cause
app
february
informal
status
conference
denied
two
petitioner
motions
indicating
consider
others
mental
health
experts
completed
evaluations
motion
reconsider
march
petitioner
filed
motion
explaining
delayed
ruling
render
number
motions
moot
indication
responded
motion
experts
returned
evaluation
april
concluding
petitioner
knows
executed
execution
result
death
moreover
ability
understand
reason
executed
experts
alleged
petitioner
uncooperative
bizarre
behavior
due
calculated
design
panetti
deliberately
persistently
chose
control
manipulate
interview
situation
claimed
app
maintained
petitioner
answer
questions
relevant
legal
issues
willing
ibid
judge
sent
letter
counsel
including
petitioner
attorney
michael
gross
dated
may
said
dear
counsel
appears
evaluations
performed
experts
opinion
petitioner
competent
executed
accordance
standards
set
art
code
criminal
procedure
mr
gross
matters
wish
considered
please
file
case
papers
get
copies
may
petitioner
responded
filing
entitled
objections
experts
report
renewed
motion
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
investigator
renewed
motion
appointment
counsel
motion
competency
hearing
cause
may
hereinafter
objections
experts
report
filing
petitioner
criticized
methodology
conclusions
experts
asserted
continued
need
mental
health
expert
criticisms
report
necessity
limited
asked
rule
outstanding
motions
funds
appointment
counsel
requested
competency
hearing
petitioner
also
argued
general
matter
process
received
thus
far
failed
comply
art
procedural
mandates
set
ford
response
closed
case
may
released
short
order
identifying
report
submitted
experts
explaining
ased
aforesaid
doctors
reports
finds
petitioner
failed
show
preponderance
evidence
incompetent
executed
order
regarding
competency
executed
cause
app
order
made
mention
petitioner
motions
filings
petitioner
appeal
ruling
criminal
appeals
petition
certiorari
background
leads
matter
us
petitioner
returned
federal
seeking
resolution
petition
filed
january
district
granted
petitioner
motions
reconsider
stay
execution
appoint
counsel
provide
funds
addition
set
case
evidentiary
hearing
included
testimony
psychiatrist
professor
two
psychologists
called
petitioner
well
two
psychologists
three
correctional
officers
called
respondent
see
app
see
also
describe
substance
experts
testimony
detail
later
opinion
september
district
denied
petitioner
habeas
application
merits
concluded
state
trial
failed
comply
art
found
state
proceedings
constitutionally
inadequate
light
ford
reviewed
petitioner
eighth
amendment
claim
without
deferring
state
finding
competency
panetti
dretke
supp
wd
tex
nevertheless
denied
relief
found
petitioner
shown
incompetency
defined
circuit
precedent
ultimately
explained
fifth
circuit
test
competency
executed
requires
petitioner
know
fact
impending
execution
factual
predicate
execution
appeals
affirmed
panetti
dretke
granted
certiorari
ii
first
consider
jurisdiction
habeas
corpus
application
review
second
one
petitioner
filed
federal
gatekeeping
provisions
claim
presented
second
successive
habeas
corpus
application
section
presented
prior
application
shall
dismissed
except
certain
narrow
circumstances
see
state
maintains
direction
district
lacked
jurisdiction
adjudicate
petitioner
application
argument
straightforward
petitioner
first
federal
habeas
application
fully
finally
adjudicated
merits
failed
raise
ford
claim
result
subsequent
habeas
application
raise
ford
claim
successive
application
terms
supplemental
brief
respondent
state
contends
moreover
ford
claim
brought
application
governed
gatekeeping
provisions
must
dismissed
see
supplemental
brief
respondent
citing
state
acknowledges
incompetency
claims
general
matter
ripe
time
run
file
first
federal
habeas
petition
see
supplemental
brief
respondent
state
nevertheless
maintains
rule
foreclose
prisoners
raising
ford
claims
stewart
state
explains
federal
permitted
review
prisoner
ford
claim
becomes
ripe
prisoner
preserved
claim
filing
first
federal
habeas
application
state
approach
prisoner
contemplating
future
ford
claim
preserve
means
state
argument
force
results
produce
however
show
flaws
state
interpretation
successive
correct
implications
habeas
practice
far
reaching
seemingly
perverse
prisoner
faced
two
options
forgo
opportunity
raise
ford
claim
federal
raise
claim
first
federal
habeas
application
generally
must
filed
within
one
year
relevant
ruling
even
though
premature
dilemma
apply
prisoners
mental
conditions
indicative
incompetency
also
early
sign
mental
illness
prisoners
risk
deteriorations
mental
state
result
conscientious
defense
attorneys
obliged
file
unripe
many
cases
meritless
ford
claims
every
application
counterintuitive
approach
add
burden
imposed
courts
applicants
clear
advantage
conclude
another
reasonable
interpretation
one
produce
distortions
inefficiencies
phrase
second
successive
takes
full
meaning
case
law
including
decisions
predating
enactment
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
stat
see
slack
mcdaniel
citing
supra
see
also
felker
turpin
declined
interpret
second
successive
referring
applications
filed
second
successively
time
even
later
filings
address
judgment
already
challenged
prior
application
see
slack
concluding
second
application
second
successive
petitioner
first
application
challenged
judgment
dismissed
failure
exhaust
state
remedies
see
also
indicating
law
govern
ed
case
implying
reach
result
aedpa
see
also
supra
interpretation
illustrative
prisoner
filed
first
habeas
application
execution
date
set
first
application
asserted
inter
alia
incompetent
executed
citing
ford
district
among
holdings
dismissed
claim
premature
appeals
affirmed
ruling
state
obtained
warrant
execution
prisoner
filed
second
time
habeas
application
raising
incompetency
claim
state
argued
prisoner
already
one
habeas
petition
plain
meaning
requires
new
petition
treated
successive
rejected
contention
later
filing
may
second
time
prisoner
asked
federal
courts
provide
relief
ford
claim
declined
accept
result
two
separate
applications
second
necessarily
subject
ibid
instead
held
light
particular
circumstances
presented
ford
claim
treat
two
filings
single
application
petitioner
entitled
adjudication
claims
presented
earlier
undoubtedly
reviewable
application
federal
habeas
relief
earlier
holding
resolve
jurisdictional
question
instant
case
address
applicability
prisoner
raises
ford
claim
first
time
petition
filed
federal
courts
already
rejected
prisoner
initial
habeas
application
yet
willingness
look
implications
habeas
practice
interpreting
informs
analysis
conclude
accord
precedent
congress
intend
provisions
aedpa
addressing
second
successive
petitions
govern
filing
unusual
posture
presented
application
raising
incompetency
claim
filed
soon
claim
ripe
conclusion
confirmed
consider
aedpa
purposes
statute
design
principles
comity
finality
federalism
cockrell
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
cf
day
mcdonough
aedpa
statute
limitation
promotes
judicial
efficiency
conservation
judicial
resources
safeguards
accuracy
state
judgments
requiring
resolution
constitutional
questions
record
fresh
lends
finality
state
judgments
within
reasonable
time
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
purposes
practical
effects
holdings
considered
interpreting
aedpa
particularly
petitioners
run
risk
proposed
interpretation
forever
losing
opportunity
federal
review
unexhausted
claims
rhines
weber
see
also
castro
rhines
recognize
gravity
problem
posed
petitioners
file
applications
claims
exhausted
well
difficulty
problem
posed
petitioners
federal
district
courts
alike
sought
ensure
solution
problem
compatible
aedpa
purposes
castro
resisted
interpretation
statute
produce
troublesome
results
create
procedural
anomalies
close
doors
class
habeas
petitioners
seeking
review
without
clear
indication
congress
intent
see
also
williams
taylor
johnson
duncan
walker
cf
granberry
greer
empty
formality
requiring
prisoners
file
unripe
ford
claims
neither
respects
limited
legal
resources
available
encourages
exhaustion
state
remedies
see
duncan
supra
instructing
prisoners
file
premature
claims
particularly
many
claims
colorable
even
later
date
conserve
judicial
resources
reduc
piecemeal
litigation
streamlin
federal
habeas
proceedings
burton
stewart
slip
per
curiam
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
aedpa
concern
finality
moreover
implicated
none
possible
approaches
federal
courts
able
resolve
prisoner
ford
claim
execution
imminent
see
supra
acknowledging
district
unable
resolve
prisoner
incompetency
claim
time
initial
habeas
filing
filings
frivolous
designed
delay
executions
dismissed
regular
course
requirement
threshold
preliminary
showing
instance
general
matter
imposed
stay
granted
action
allowed
proceed
addition
argument
petitioner
actions
constituted
abuse
writ
concept
explained
cases
cf
felker
aedpa
new
restrictions
successive
petitions
constitute
modified
res
judicata
rule
restraint
called
habeas
corpus
practice
contrary
confirmed
claims
incompetency
executed
remain
unripe
early
stages
proceedings
see
see
also
ibid
suggesting
therefore
appropriate
general
matter
prisoner
wait
seeking
resolution
incompetency
claim
ford
wainwright
remanding
case
district
resolve
ford
incompetency
claim
even
though
ford
brought
claim
second
federal
habeas
petition
barnard
collins
ur
research
indicates
reported
decision
federal
circuit
denied
relief
petitioner
claim
grounds
abuse
writ
see
generally
mccleskey
zant
usual
case
petition
filed
second
time
otherwise
permitted
terms
survive
aedpa
second
successive
bar
however
exceptions
hesitant
construe
statute
implemented
principles
comity
finality
federalism
manner
require
unripe
often
factually
unsupported
claims
raised
mere
formality
benefit
party
statutory
bar
second
successive
applications
apply
ford
claim
brought
application
filed
claim
first
ripe
petitioner
habeas
application
properly
filed
district
jurisdiction
adjudicate
claim
iii
petitioner
claims
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
elaborated
ford
entitled
certain
procedures
provided
state
failure
provide
procedures
constituted
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
misapplication
ford
allows
review
incompetency
claim
without
deference
state
decision
agree
petitioner
deference
due
state
failure
provide
procedures
mandated
ford
constituted
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
determined
uncontested
petitioner
made
substantial
showing
incompetency
showing
entitled
among
things
adequate
means
submit
expert
psychiatric
evidence
response
evidence
solicited
state
clear
record
state
reached
competency
determination
failing
provide
petitioner
process
notwithstanding
counsel
sustained
effort
diligence
compliance
orders
result
error
review
petitioner
underlying
incompetency
claim
unencumbered
deference
aedpa
normally
requires
ford
identifies
measures
state
must
provide
prisoner
alleges
incompetency
executed
plurality
ford
concluded
follows
although
condemned
prisoner
enjoy
presumptions
accorded
defendant
yet
convicted
sentenced
lost
protection
constitution
altogether
constitution
renders
fact
timing
execution
contingent
upon
establishment
fact
fact
must
determined
high
regard
truth
befits
decision
affecting
life
death
human
thus
ascertainment
prisoner
sanity
predicate
lawful
execution
calls
less
stringent
standards
demanded
aspect
capital
proceeding
justice
powell
concurrence
also
addressed
question
procedure
offered
limited
holding
majority
opinion
narrower
holding
controls
see
marks
rule
justice
powell
opinion
constitutes
clearly
established
law
purposes
sets
minimum
procedures
state
must
provide
prisoner
raising
competency
claim
justice
powell
opinion
relevant
standard
follows
prisoner
seeking
stay
execution
made
substantial
threshold
showing
insanity
protection
afforded
procedural
due
process
includes
fair
hearing
accord
fundamental
fairness
ford
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
protection
means
prisoner
must
accorded
opportunity
heard
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
though
constitutionally
acceptable
procedure
may
far
less
formal
trial
example
state
procedures
review
ford
deficient
justice
powell
explained
determination
sanity
appear
ed
made
solely
basis
examinations
performed
psychiatrists
procedure
invites
arbitrariness
error
preventing
affected
parties
offering
contrary
medical
evidence
even
explaining
inadequacies
state
examinations
ibid
justice
powell
set
forth
precise
limits
due
process
imposes
area
observed
state
substantial
leeway
determine
process
best
balances
various
interests
stake
met
basic
requirements
required
due
process
ibid
basic
requirements
include
opportunity
submit
evidence
argument
prisoner
counsel
including
expert
psychiatric
evidence
may
differ
state
psychiatric
examination
ibid
petitioner
entitled
protections
made
substantial
threshold
showing
insanity
made
showing
filed
renewed
motion
determine
competency
fact
disputed
party
confirmed
trial
appointment
mental
health
experts
pursuant
article
verified
independent
review
record
renewed
motion
included
pointed
observations
made
two
experts
day
petitioner
scheduled
execution
incorporated
petitioner
first
motion
determine
competency
references
extensive
evidence
mental
dysfunction
considered
earlier
legal
proceedings
light
showing
state
failed
provide
petitioner
minimum
process
required
ford
state
refused
transcribe
proceedings
notwithstanding
multiple
motions
petitioner
filed
requesting
process
extent
complete
record
may
put
actions
favorable
light
constitutes
evidence
inadequacy
proceedings
based
materials
available
appears
state
repeated
occasions
conveyed
information
petitioner
counsel
turned
true
provided
least
one
significant
update
state
without
providing
notice
petitioner
failed
general
keep
petitioner
informed
opportunity
present
case
also
strong
argument
violated
state
law
failing
provide
competency
hearing
see
tex
code
crim
proc
art
fact
constitute
violation
procedural
framework
texas
mandated
adjudication
incompetency
claims
violation
undermines
reliance
state
might
place
justice
powell
assertion
substantial
leeway
determine
process
best
balances
various
interests
stake
ford
supra
see
also
brief
respondent
order
issued
state
implied
determination
petitioner
competency
made
solely
basis
examinations
performed
psychiatrists
appointed
precisely
sort
adjudication
justice
powell
warned
invit
arbitrariness
error
ford
supra
state
made
additional
error
one
ford
makes
clear
impermissible
constitution
failed
provide
petitioner
adequate
opportunity
submit
expert
evidence
response
report
filed
experts
mailed
experts
report
parties
first
week
may
report
rejected
factual
basis
petitioner
claim
set
forth
new
allegations
suggesting
petitioner
bizarre
behavior
due
least
part
deliberate
design
rather
mental
illness
petitioner
counsel
reached
reasonable
conclusion
allegations
warranted
response
see
objections
experts
report
may
told
petitioner
counsel
letter
file
matters
wish
considered
within
week
petitioner
response
renewed
motions
evidentiary
hearing
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
relief
submit
time
expert
psychiatric
evidence
challenge
experts
report
decision
context
made
sense
said
rule
outstanding
motions
included
request
funds
hire
expert
request
evidentiary
hearing
experts
completed
evaluation
counsel
justified
relying
representation
texas
law
moreover
provides
finding
incompetency
made
basis
inter
alia
final
competency
hearing
tex
code
crim
proc
art
see
also
ex
parte
caldwell
tex
crim
app
confirming
legislature
codified
dictates
ford
enacting
precursor
art
indicating
determination
whether
appoint
experts
conduct
hearing
within
discretion
trial
petitioner
made
substantial
showing
incompetency
advised
counsel
resolve
case
without
first
ruling
petitioner
motions
without
holding
competency
hearing
petitioner
counsel
might
managed
procure
assistance
experts
able
pro
bono
basis
day
petitioner
previously
scheduled
execution
event
reasonable
counsel
refrain
procuring
submitting
expert
psychiatric
evidence
waiting
rule
timely
filed
motions
reliance
assurances
point
simply
ended
matter
state
failed
provide
petitioner
constitutionally
adequate
opportunity
heard
prisoner
made
requisite
threshold
showing
ford
requires
minimum
allow
prisoner
counsel
opportunity
make
adequate
response
evidence
solicited
state
see
petitioner
case
meant
opportunity
submit
psychiatric
evidence
counterweight
report
filed
experts
yet
petitioner
failed
receive
even
rudimentary
process
light
error
need
address
whether
procedures
opportunity
discovery
witnesses
cases
required
due
process
clause
ford
makes
clear
procedural
deficiencies
already
identified
constituted
violation
petitioner
federal
rights
state
denial
certain
petitioner
motions
rests
implicit
finding
procedures
provided
adequate
resolve
competency
claim
light
procedural
history
described
however
determination
reconciled
reasonable
application
controlling
standard
ford
standard
stated
general
terms
mean
application
reasonable
aedpa
require
state
federal
courts
wait
nearly
identical
factual
pattern
legal
rule
must
applied
carey
musladin
slip
kennedy
concurring
judgment
aedpa
prohibit
federal
finding
application
principle
unreasonable
involves
set
facts
different
case
principle
announced
lockyer
andrade
statute
recognizes
contrary
even
general
standard
may
applied
unreasonable
manner
see
williams
taylor
finding
decision
contrary
involving
unreasonable
application
standard
set
forth
strickland
washington
principles
guide
reviewing
faced
record
reasonable
interpretation
controlling
legal
standard
support
certain
legal
ruling
aedpa
federal
may
grant
habeas
relief
relevant
state
adjudication
claim
merits
resulted
decision
involved
unreasonable
application
relevant
law
state
adjudication
claim
dependent
antecedent
unreasonable
application
federal
law
requirement
set
forth
satisfied
federal
must
resolve
claim
without
deference
aedpa
otherwise
requires
see
wiggins
smith
performing
analysis
required
strickland
second
prong
without
deferring
state
decision
state
resolution
strickland
first
prong
involved
unreasonable
application
law
confirming
state
ultimate
decision
reject
prisoner
claim
based
first
prong
second
see
also
williams
supra
early
packer
per
curiam
indicating
preclude
relief
either
reasoning
result
decision
contradicts
cases
due
state
unreasonable
application
ford
factfinding
procedures
upon
relied
adequate
reaching
reasonably
correct
results
minimum
resulted
process
appeared
seriously
inadequate
ascertainment
truth
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
therefore
consider
petitioner
claim
merits
without
deferring
state
finding
competency
iv
brings
us
question
petitioner
asks
resolve
whether
eighth
amendment
permits
execution
prisoner
whose
mental
illness
deprives
mental
capacity
understand
executed
punishment
crime
brief
petitioner
review
expert
testimony
helps
frame
issue
four
expert
witnesses
testified
petitioner
behalf
district
proceedings
one
explained
petitioner
mental
problems
indicative
disorder
app
resulting
genuine
delusion
involving
understanding
reason
execution
according
expert
delusion
recast
petitioner
execution
part
spiritual
warfare
demons
forces
darkness
god
angels
forces
light
result
expert
explained
although
petitioner
claims
understand
state
saying
wishes
execute
murder
believes
earnest
stated
reason
sham
state
truth
wants
execute
stop
preaching
ibid
petitioner
expert
witnesses
reached
similar
conclusions
concerning
strength
sincerity
fixed
delusion
see
also
state
expert
witnesses
resisted
conclusion
petitioner
stated
beliefs
necessarily
indicative
incompetency
see
particularly
light
perceived
ability
understand
certain
concepts
times
clear
lucid
see
also
acknowledged
evidence
mental
problems
see
petitioner
rebuttal
witness
attempted
reconcile
experts
testimony
well
first
understand
somebody
schizophrenic
diminish
cognitive
ability
instead
situation
call
schizophrenia
thought
disorder
logical
integration
reality
connection
thoughts
disrupted
stimulus
comes
instead
analyzed
processed
rational
logical
linear
sort
way
gets
scrambled
comes
tangential
circumstantial
symbolic
really
relevant
kind
way
essence
somebody
schizophrenic
may
dealing
someone
familiar
may
feel
like
safer
enclosed
environment
sorts
interactions
may
reasonably
lucid
whereas
extended
conversation
loaded
material
reflect
severity
mental
illness
see
also
suggesting
unmedicated
individual
suffering
schizophrenia
times
hold
ordinary
conversation
depends
whether
discussion
concerns
individual
fixed
delusional
system
short
much
record
support
conclusion
petitioner
suffers
severe
delusions
see
app
see
generally
legal
inquiry
concerns
whether
delusions
said
render
incompetent
appeals
held
holding
conclude
rests
flawed
interpretation
ford
appeals
stated
competency
determined
whether
prisoner
aware
going
executed
going
executed
quoting
barnard
see
also
discussing
ford
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
end
appeals
identified
relevant
district
findings
follows
first
petitioner
aware
committed
murders
second
aware
executed
third
aware
reason
state
given
execution
commission
crimes
question
circuit
precedent
ends
analysis
matter
law
appeals
regards
three
factual
findings
necessarily
demonstrating
prisoner
aware
reason
execution
appeals
concluded
standard
foreclosed
petitioner
establishing
incompetency
means
seeks
employ
showing
mental
illness
obstructs
rational
understanding
state
reason
execution
explained
ecause
hold
term
used
ford
necessarily
synonymous
understanding
argued
petitioner
conclude
district
findings
sufficient
establish
petitioner
competent
executed
view
appeals
standard
restrictive
afford
prisoner
protections
granted
eighth
amendment
opinions
ford
must
acknowledged
set
forth
precise
standard
competency
plurality
discussed
substantive
standard
high
level
generality
justice
powell
wrote
articulated
specific
criteria
yet
portion
justice
marshall
discussion
constituting
opinion
portion
justice
powell
joined
majority
reach
express
conclusion
constitution
places
substantive
restriction
state
power
take
life
insane
prisoner
ford
stated
foundation
principle
follows
oday
less
may
seriously
question
retributive
value
executing
person
comprehension
singled
stripped
fundamental
right
life
similarly
natural
abhorrence
civilized
societies
feel
killing
one
capacity
come
grips
conscience
deity
still
vivid
today
intuition
execution
simply
humanity
evidently
shared
across
nation
faced
widespread
evidence
restriction
upon
sovereign
power
compelled
conclude
eighth
amendment
prohibits
state
carrying
sentence
death
upon
prisoner
insane
writing
four
justices
justice
marshall
concluded
indicating
eighth
amendment
prohibits
execution
one
whose
mental
illness
prevents
comprehending
reasons
penalty
implications
justice
powell
separate
opinion
asserted
eighth
amendment
forbids
execution
unaware
punishment
suffer
suffer
appeals
standard
treats
prisoner
delusional
belief
system
irrelevant
prisoner
knows
state
identified
crimes
reason
execution
see
supp
indicating
circuit
precedent
petitioner
delusional
beliefs
even
may
result
fundamental
failure
appreciate
connection
petitioner
crime
execution
bear
question
whether
petitioner
reason
execution
purposes
eighth
amendment
see
also
yet
ford
opinions
nowhere
indicate
delusions
irrelevant
comprehen
sion
aware
ness
impair
prisoner
concept
reality
reach
rational
understanding
reason
execution
anything
ford
majority
suggests
opposite
explaining
prohibition
executing
prisoner
lost
sanity
justice
marshall
controlling
portion
opinion
set
forth
various
rationales
including
recognition
execution
insane
person
simply
offends
humanity
provides
example
others
ibid
uncharitable
dispatch
offender
another
world
capacity
fit
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
madness
punishment
ibid
executing
insane
person
serves
retributive
purpose
considering
last
whether
retribution
served
might
said
capital
punishment
imposed
potential
make
offender
recognize
last
gravity
crime
allow
community
whole
including
surviving
family
friends
victim
affirm
judgment
culpability
prisoner
serious
ultimate
penalty
must
sought
imposed
potential
prisoner
recognition
severity
offense
objective
community
vindication
called
question
however
prisoner
mental
state
distorted
mental
illness
awareness
crime
punishment
little
relation
understanding
concepts
shared
community
whole
problem
necessarily
overcome
test
set
forth
appeals
met
similar
logic
rationales
set
forth
ford
fail
align
distinctions
drawn
appeals
whether
ford
inquiry
competency
formulated
question
prisoner
ability
comprehen
reasons
punishment
determination
whether
unaware
suffer
approach
taken
appeals
inconsistent
ford
principles
set
forth
ford
put
risk
rule
deems
delusions
relevant
respect
state
announced
reason
punishment
fact
imminent
execution
see
opposed
real
interests
state
seeks
vindicate
likewise
find
support
elsewhere
ford
including
discussions
common
law
state
standards
proposition
prisoner
automatically
foreclosed
demonstrating
incompetency
found
identify
stated
reason
execution
prisoner
awareness
state
rationale
execution
rational
understanding
ford
foreclose
inquiry
latter
deny
fact
concept
like
rational
understanding
difficult
define
must
ignore
concern
prisoners
whose
cases
implicated
decision
fail
understand
punished
account
reasons
stemming
severe
mental
illness
mental
state
requisite
competence
suffer
capital
punishment
neither
presumes
requires
person
considered
normal
even
rational
layperson
understanding
terms
someone
condemned
death
atrocious
murder
may
callous
unrepentant
devoid
compassion
lack
sense
guilt
adept
transferring
blame
others
considered
least
colloquial
sense
touch
reality
mind
even
extreme
compared
criminal
population
large
petitioner
contends
lie
threshold
competence
inquiry
beginning
doubt
competence
case
like
petitioner
misanthropic
personality
amoral
character
psychotic
disorder
petitioner
submission
suffers
severe
documented
mental
illness
source
gross
delusions
preventing
comprehending
meaning
purpose
punishment
sentenced
argument
hold
considered
flaws
appeals
test
pronounced
petitioner
case
circuit
precedent
required
district
disregard
evidence
psychological
dysfunction
words
judge
may
resulted
petitioner
fundamental
failure
appreciate
connection
petitioner
crime
execution
supp
refuse
consider
evidence
nature
mistake
ford
holding
logic
gross
delusions
stemming
severe
mental
disorder
may
put
awareness
link
crime
punishment
context
far
removed
reality
punishment
serve
proper
purpose
therefore
error
derive
ford
substantive
standard
incompetency
opinions
broadly
identify
strict
test
competency
treats
delusional
beliefs
irrelevant
prisoner
aware
state
identified
link
crime
punishment
inflicted
although
reject
standard
followed
appeals
attempt
set
rule
governing
competency
determinations
record
informative
might
even
narrower
issue
mental
illness
sort
alleged
petitioner
might
affect
analysis
overseeing
development
record
making
factual
findings
district
found
bound
analyze
question
competency
terms
set
circuit
precedent
acknowledged
example
difficult
issue
posed
delusions
allegedly
interfering
petitioner
understanding
reason
behind
execution
supp
refrained
making
definitive
findings
fact
respect
matters
see
see
also
identifying
testimony
mark
cunningham
indicating
petitioner
believes
state
league
forces
evil
conspired
result
even
understand
state
texas
lawfully
constituted
authority
refraining
setting
forth
definitive
findings
fact
concerning
whether
accurate
characterization
petitioner
mindset
district
declined
consider
significance
findings
might
ultimate
question
competency
eighth
amendment
see
ibid
disregarding
cunningham
testimony
light
circuit
precedent
notwithstanding
numerous
questions
district
asked
witnesses
see
app
press
experts
difficult
issue
identified
opinion
see
ibid
district
course
bound
circuit
precedent
record
developed
pursuant
standard
found
improper
result
find
difficult
amplify
conclusions
make
precise
also
hesitant
decide
question
complexity
district
appeals
addressed
definitive
manner
light
expert
evidence
found
probative
nature
severity
petitioner
alleged
mental
problems
underpinnings
petitioner
claims
explained
evaluated
detail
remand
conclusions
physicians
psychiatrists
experts
field
bear
upon
proper
analysis
expert
evidence
may
clarify
extent
severe
delusions
may
render
subject
perception
reality
distorted
deemed
incompetent
cf
brief
american
psychological
association
et
al
amici
curiae
discussing
ways
mental
health
experts
inform
competency
determinations
precedent
guide
conducting
eighth
amendment
analysis
see
roper
simmons
atkins
virginia
ford
proper
allow
charged
overseeing
development
evidentiary
record
case
initial
opportunity
resolve
petitioner
constitutional
claim
issues
may
resolved
first
instance
district
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
scott
louis
panetti
petitioner
nathaniel
quarterman
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
thomas
chief
justice
justice
scalia
justice
alito
join
dissenting
scott
panetti
mental
problems
date
least
panetti
mental
illness
may
make
sympathetic
figure
state
federal
courts
repeatedly
held
competent
face
consequences
two
murders
committed
competency
hearing
prior
trial
jury
determined
panetti
competent
stand
trial
judge
determined
panetti
competent
represent
trial
jury
rejected
panetti
insanity
defense
supported
testimony
two
psychiatrists
since
trial
state
federal
habeas
courts
rejected
panetti
claims
incompetent
stand
trial
incompetent
waive
right
counsel
case
simple
panetti
brings
claim
ford
wainwright
incompetent
executed
presented
first
time
panetti
second
federal
habeas
application
claim
undisputedly
meet
statutory
requirements
filing
second
successive
habeas
application
panetti
habeas
application
must
dismissed
ignoring
clear
statutory
mandate
bends
backwards
allow
panetti
bring
ford
claim
despite
evidence
condition
worsened
even
changed
since
along
way
improperly
refuses
defer
state
finding
competency
even
though
panetti
opportunity
submit
evidence
respond
experts
report
moreover
without
undertaking
even
cursory
eighth
amendment
analysis
imposes
new
standard
determining
incompetency
respectfully
dissent
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
requires
applicants
receive
permission
appeals
prior
filing
second
successive
federal
habeas
applications
even
permission
sought
aedpa
requires
courts
decline
requests
two
narrow
circumstances
panetti
raised
ford
claim
first
time
second
federal
habeas
application
ante
admits
seek
authorization
appeals
claim
satisfy
either
statutory
exceptions
accordingly
requires
dismissal
panetti
second
habeas
corpus
application
reaches
contrary
conclusion
reasoning
aedpa
phrase
second
successive
takes
full
meaning
case
law
including
decisions
predating
enactment
aedpa
ante
citing
slack
mcdaniel
fails
identify
case
defines
explains
modifies
phrase
second
successive
identify
case
subsequent
habeas
application
challenging
judgment
considered
anything
second
successive
knowledge
cases
aedpa
enactment
phrase
second
successive
meant
thing
today
subsequent
federal
habeas
application
challenging
judgment
previously
challenged
federal
habeas
application
see
kuhlmann
wilson
plurality
opinion
barefoot
estelle
prior
aedpa
however
second
successive
habeas
applications
always
dismissed
rather
abuse
writ
doctrine
allowed
courts
entertain
second
successive
applications
certain
circumstances
see
rule
ed
second
successive
petition
may
dismissed
new
different
grounds
alleged
judge
finds
failure
petitioner
assert
grounds
prior
petition
constituted
abuse
writ
mccleskey
zant
kuhlmann
supra
plurality
opinion
barefoot
supra
consistent
practice
prior
aedpa
federal
courts
treated
ford
claims
raised
subsequent
habeas
applications
second
successive
usually
allowed
claims
proceed
abuse
writ
see
martin
dugger
supp
sd
permitting
ford
claim
raised
second
habeas
petition
ecause
ford
substantial
change
constitutional
law
prisoner
unaware
legal
significance
relevant
facts
barnard
collins
shaw
delo
supp
ed
mo
johnson
cabana
supp
sd
miss
still
though
least
one
found
ford
claim
raised
subsequent
application
abuse
writ
rector
lockhart
supp
ed
ark
enacted
aedpa
congress
restrict
ed
availability
relief
habeas
petitioners
placed
new
limits
successive
petitions
felker
turpin
instead
judicial
discretion
governed
second
successive
habeas
applications
prior
aedpa
congress
required
dismissal
second
successive
applications
except
two
specified
circumstances
aedpa
thus
eliminated
much
discretion
previously
saved
second
successive
habeas
petitions
dismissal
stating
ha
declined
interpret
successive
referring
applications
filed
second
successively
time
ante
relies
upon
stewart
held
subsequent
application
raising
ford
claim
go
forward
case
however
applicant
raised
ford
claim
initial
habeas
application
district
dismissed
unripe
refusing
treat
applicant
subsequent
application
second
successive
simply
held
second
application
renewed
ford
claim
originally
presented
prior
application
may
second
time
respondent
asked
federal
courts
provide
relief
ford
claim
mean
two
separate
applications
second
necessarily
subject
one
application
habeas
relief
district
ruled
ruled
claim
time
became
ripe
respondent
entitled
adjudication
claims
presented
earlier
undoubtedly
reviewable
application
federal
habeas
relief
words
held
applicant
raises
ford
claim
initial
habeas
application
bar
second
application
claim
ripens
second
application
continuation
first
application
cf
burton
stewart
slip
per
curiam
nlike
burton
prisoner
attempted
bring
claim
initial
habeas
petition
apply
panetti
bring
ford
claim
initial
habeas
argue
time
claim
ripe
first
habeas
petition
may
raised
later
habeas
petition
unanimously
rejected
argument
burton
stewart
supra
burton
petitioner
filed
federal
habeas
petition
challenging
convictions
challenging
sentence
time
still
review
state
courts
state
courts
rejected
sentencing
claims
petitioner
filed
second
federal
habeas
petition
time
challenging
sentence
ninth
circuit
held
burton
second
petition
second
successive
aedpa
reason
ing
burton
exhausted
sentencing
claims
state
filed
first
petition
ripe
federal
habeas
review
time
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
ninth
circuit
found
second
petition
foreclosed
aedpa
since
claim
ripe
raised
first
petition
ibid
rejected
ninth
circuit
view
held
aedpa
barred
burton
second
petition
light
burton
simply
maintained
panetti
excused
requirements
solely
ford
claim
unripe
included
first
habeas
application
today
decision
thus
stands
proposition
ford
claims
somehow
deserve
special
unjustified
exemption
statute
plain
import
neither
aedpa
text
precedent
aedpa
jurisprudence
supports
understanding
second
successive
falls
back
judicial
economy
considerations
suggests
interpretation
statute
create
incentive
every
prisoner
regardless
mental
state
raise
preserve
ford
claim
event
prisoner
later
becomes
insane
ante
even
comes
pass
catastrophe
suggests
district
courts
simply
dismiss
unripe
ford
claims
outright
habeas
applicants
raise
subsequent
petitions
safe
harbor
established
requiring
ford
claims
included
initial
habeas
application
added
benefit
putting
state
notice
prisoner
intends
challenge
competency
executed
event
regardless
whether
concern
justified
judicial
economy
considerations
override
aedpa
plain
meaning
remaining
faithful
aedpa
mandate
dismiss
panetti
application
second
successive
ii
also
errs
holding
state
unreasonably
applied
clearly
established
precedent
failing
afford
panetti
adequate
procedural
protections
ante
panetti
entitled
habeas
relief
proceedings
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
even
justice
powell
concurrence
ford
qualifies
clearly
established
federal
law
point
state
unreasonably
apply
procedural
rights
described
ford
triggered
upon
substantial
threshold
showing
insanity
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
plurality
opinion
using
term
high
threshold
following
independent
review
record
ante
majority
finds
panetti
made
satisfactory
threshold
showing
conclusion
insupportable
panetti
filed
two
exhibits
renewed
motion
determine
competency
state
see
scott
panetti
renewed
motion
determine
competency
executed
cause
gillespie
jud
hereinafter
renewed
motion
first
letter
cunningham
panetti
counsel
describing
preliminary
evaluation
panetti
letter
mark
cunningham
michael
gross
app
far
containing
pointed
observations
ante
cunningham
letter
unsworn
contains
diagnosis
discuss
whether
panetti
understood
executed
ibid
panetti
exhibit
declaration
law
professor
attended
cunningham
meeting
panetti
declaration
david
dow
professor
dow
obviously
made
medical
diagnosis
simply
discussed
lay
perception
panetti
mental
condition
cursory
manner
ibid
describes
dow
expert
ante
law
professors
obviously
experts
comes
medical
psychological
diagnoses
panetti
renewed
motion
attached
medical
reports
records
sworn
testimony
medical
professional
diagnosis
medical
condition
claims
panetti
referred
extensive
evidence
mental
dysfunction
considered
earlier
legal
proceedings
ibid
federal
district
noted
panetti
merely
outlined
mental
health
history
time
period
order
case
evidence
previously
rejected
state
federal
courts
adjudicated
panetti
incompetency
claims
relevance
panetti
competency
executed
filed
renewed
motion
ibid
addition
utter
lack
new
medical
evidence
layperson
observed
panetti
basis
prison
guards
fellow
inmates
submitted
affidavit
even
letter
short
panetti
supported
alleged
incompetency
preliminary
observations
psychologist
lawyer
whose
contact
panetti
single
meeting
absurd
suggest
quantum
evidence
clears
high
threshold
entitling
claimants
procedural
protections
described
plurality
justice
powell
ford
plurality
opinion
see
also
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
determined
panetti
evidence
exceeded
high
threshold
set
forth
ford
asserts
ford
requires
allow
prisoner
counsel
opportunity
make
adequate
response
evidence
solicited
state
ante
citing
ford
supra
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
justice
powell
concurrence
prisoner
right
present
evidence
impartial
decisionmaker
light
facts
ford
becomes
obvious
case
texas
satisfied
obligations
justice
powell
described
florida
law
issue
ford
governor
made
final
decision
condemned
prisoner
sanity
plurality
opinion
prisoner
submit
evidence
opportunity
heard
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
words
florida
procedures
required
neither
neutral
decisionmaker
opportunity
prisoner
present
evidence
backdrop
justice
powell
concurrence
due
process
requires
impartial
decisionmaker
chance
present
evidence
state
provide
impartial
officer
board
receive
evidence
argument
prisoner
counsel
including
expert
psychiatric
evidence
may
differ
state
psychiatric
examination
setting
forth
minimal
procedural
protections
justice
powell
explained
eyond
basic
requirements
substantial
leeway
determine
process
best
balances
various
interests
stake
ibid
justice
powell
stressed
ordinary
adversarial
procedures
necessarily
best
means
arriving
sound
consistent
judgments
defendant
sanity
considered
panetti
insanity
claim
state
clearly
satisfied
justice
powell
requirement
provide
impartial
officer
board
sole
remaining
question
whether
state
receive
evidence
argument
prisoner
counsel
including
expert
psychiatric
evidence
may
differ
state
psychiatric
examination
ibid
outset
discussion
suggests
texas
entitled
substantial
leeway
determining
procedures
appropriate
see
ford
supra
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
texas
may
violat
ed
procedural
framework
texas
mandated
adjudication
incompetency
claims
ante
sole
support
assertion
strong
argument
violated
state
law
failing
provide
competency
hearing
ibid
article
texas
code
criminal
procedure
provides
right
competency
hearing
determination
whether
appoint
experts
conduct
hearing
article
within
discretion
trial
ex
parte
caldwell
tex
crim
app
contrary
statement
ante
discretion
depend
whether
substantial
showing
incompetency
made
see
caldwell
supra
accordingly
basis
denying
texas
substantial
leeway
ford
grants
texas
law
allows
prisoners
submit
affidavits
records
evidence
supporting
defendant
allegations
defendant
presently
incompetent
executed
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
pamphlet
therefore
state
law
provided
panetti
legal
right
submit
whatever
evidence
wanted
clear
state
stood
ready
willing
consider
evidence
panetti
wished
submit
record
state
proceedings
shows
panetti
took
full
advantage
opportunity
example
experts
presented
report
state
gave
panetti
chance
respond
app
panetti
filed
brief
objecting
report
arguing
problems
objections
experts
report
app
extensive
consideration
panetti
submitted
evidence
necessary
submissions
statements
one
doctor
one
lawyer
paltry
unpersuasive
evidence
presented
warrant
extensive
examination
change
fact
panetti
unlimited
opportunity
submit
evidence
state
based
panetti
evidence
report
experts
panetti
objections
report
state
found
efendant
failed
show
preponderance
evidence
incompetent
executed
given
panetti
meager
evidentiary
submissions
unsurprising
state
declined
proceed
asserts
order
issued
state
implied
determination
petitioner
competency
improperly
made
solely
basis
examinations
performed
psychiatrists
appointed
ante
however
order
focus
report
experts
indicates
found
report
persuasive
app
supported
persuasive
report
two
neutral
experts
reasonably
concluded
panetti
meager
evidence
deserved
mention
see
part
supra
view
state
fairly
implemented
procedures
described
justice
powell
opinion
ford
receive
evidence
argument
prisoner
counsel
least
state
unreasonably
apply
concurrence
see
dispute
panetti
unlimited
opportunity
present
evidence
argues
state
failed
provide
petitioner
adequate
opportunity
submit
expert
evidence
response
report
filed
experts
ante
according
opportunity
denied
panetti
state
failed
rule
explicitly
motions
failed
warn
receive
evidentiary
position
factual
basis
experts
submitted
report
state
made
clear
case
proceeding
conclusion
panetti
counsel
needed
submit
anything
else
wanted
judge
consider
appears
evaluations
performed
mary
anderson
george
parker
opinion
panetti
competent
executed
accordance
standards
set
art
code
criminal
procedure
mr
gross
matters
wish
considered
please
file
case
papers
get
copies
may
letter
district
judge
stephen
ables
cause
may
app
panetti
counsel
got
message
far
assuming
hearing
ante
counsel
renewed
motion
requesting
competency
hearing
motion
seeking
state
funding
mental
health
expert
app
panetti
filing
indicates
understood
hearing
currently
scheduled
wanted
convince
state
deny
relief
needed
immediately
see
record
demonstrates
panetti
actually
sought
opportunity
submit
additional
evidence
time
evidence
submit
state
funding
pursuit
evidence
see
ex
parte
motion
prepayment
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
assist
defense
article
proceedings
cause
ex
parte
motion
prepayment
funds
hire
investigator
assist
defense
counsel
cause
defendant
motion
appointment
counsel
assist
article
proceedings
cause
panetti
response
show
cause
order
case
june
cf
order
case
never
recognized
constitutional
right
state
funding
counsel
state
habeas
proceedings
much
less
experts
texas
law
grants
right
ford
proceedings
ex
parte
caldwell
tex
crim
app
holding
funding
counsel
experts
article
proceedings
discretion
district
coleman
thompson
noting
constitutional
right
counsel
state
habeas
cases
short
nothing
record
suggest
panetti
submitted
additional
evidence
given
another
opportunity
panetti
never
requested
time
submit
evidence
never
told
wanted
submit
additional
evidence
event
requests
fees
denied
panetti
track
record
submitting
new
evidence
first
article
motion
supra
two
insubstantial
exhibits
second
part
supra
suggests
highly
unlikely
panetti
planned
present
anything
else
accordingly
proceedings
evaluate
panetti
insanity
claim
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
state
unreasonably
apply
justice
powell
procedural
analysis
must
defer
determination
panetti
competent
executed
see
thus
panetti
entitled
federal
habeas
relief
state
determination
competent
executed
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
precedent
based
unreasonable
determination
facts
light
evidence
presented
state
proceeding
even
panetti
argues
standard
met
applying
justice
powell
substantive
standard
competency
state
determined
panetti
competent
executed
app
see
also
tex
code
crim
proc
art
factual
determination
presumed
correct
factual
determination
based
expert
report
two
doctors
almost
evidence
contrary
see
part
supra
hence
panetti
entitled
federal
habeas
relief
iii
lack
jurisdiction
aedpa
consider
panetti
claim
even
jurisdiction
proper
state
decision
constitutes
reasonable
application
federal
law
address
whether
appeals
standard
insanity
substantively
correct
however
reject
approach
answering
question
parses
opinions
ford
impose
additional
constitutional
requirement
without
undertaking
eighth
amendment
analysis
quibbles
precise
meaning
ford
opinions
respect
issue
presented
case
emerges
holding
leaves
details
insanity
standard
district
work
see
ante
sole
justification
thrusting
already
muddled
ford
determinations
disarray
asserts
ford
compels
result
plurality
ford
define
insanity
create
substantive
standard
determining
competency
see
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
stating
opinion
address
meaning
insanity
justice
powell
concurrence
set
forth
standard
state
disputes
need
require
executed
know
fact
impending
execution
reason
standard
appropriately
defines
kind
mental
deficiency
trigger
eighth
amendment
prohibition
defendant
perceives
connection
crime
punishment
retributive
goal
criminal
law
satisfied
defendant
aware
death
approaching
prepare
passing
accordingly
hold
eighth
amendment
forbids
execution
unaware
punishment
suffer
suffer
issue
ford
actual
knowledge
rational
understanding
nothing
ford
opinions
addresses
prisoner
knows
reason
execution
rationally
understand
tracing
language
justice
powell
concurrence
appeals
held
panetti
needed
stated
reason
execution
panetti
dretke
implicitly
appeals
also
concluded
fact
panetti
disbelieves
state
stated
reason
executing
panetti
dretke
supp
wd
tex
render
unaware
reason
execution
challenges
approach
based
expansive
interpretation
justice
powell
use
word
aware
ante
however
deny
awareness
undefined
ford
ford
discuss
whether
delusions
impair
prisoner
concept
reality
reach
rational
understanding
reason
execution
affect
awareness
constitutionally
relevant
ante
nevertheless
cobbles
together
stray
language
ford
multiple
opinions
asserts
appeals
test
somehow
inconsistent
spirit
ford
result
follow
naturally
ford
today
opinion
understood
holding
first
time
eighth
amendment
requires
rational
understanding
although
apparently
imposing
new
substantive
eighth
amendment
requirement
assiduously
avoids
applying
framework
analyzing
eighth
amendment
claims
see
ford
supra
first
analyzing
whether
execution
insane
among
modes
acts
punishment
considered
cruel
unusual
time
bill
rights
adopted
roper
simmons
considering
also
whether
punishment
deemed
cruel
unusual
according
modern
standards
decency
atkins
virginia
looking
objective
evidence
contemporary
values
clearest
reliable
legislation
enacted
country
legislatures
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
likely
avoided
undertaking
analysis
evidence
support
see
scalia
dissenting
discussing
demanding
standard
employed
common
law
show
prisoner
insane
executed
appeals
least
took
approach
based
ford
actually
says
approach
far
frivolous
unreasonable
contrast
approach
today
settling
upon
preferred
outcome
without
resort
law
foreign
judicial
role
know
ruling
misinterprets
aedpa
refuses
defer
state
aedpa
requires
rejects
appeals
approach
without
constitutional
analysis
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
section
claim
presented
second
successive
habeas
corpus
application
section
presented
prior
application
shall
dismissed
unless
applicant
shows
claim
relies
new
rule
constitutional
law
made
retroactive
cases
collateral
review
previously
unavailable
factual
predicate
claim
discovered
previously
exercise
due
diligence
ii
facts
underlying
claim
proven
viewed
light
evidence
whole
sufficient
establish
clear
convincing
evidence
constitutional
error
reasonable
factfinder
found
applicant
guilty
underlying
offense
identifies
two
cases
ante
citing
slack
mcdaniel
stewart
cases
decided
aedpa
establish
meaning
second
successive
moreover
cases
apply
inapplicability
discussed
infra
like
narrow
exception
described
slack
akin
renewal
initial
application
see
infra
discussing
even
maintain
slack
applies
panetti
claim
asserts
second
successive
term
art
excepted
ford
claims
difficult
explain
immediately
following
aedpa
passage
courts
appeals
uniformly
considered
subsequent
applications
raising
ford
claims
second
successive
see
medina
per
curiam
davis
see
also
stewart
per
curiam
finding
applicable
allowing
ford
claim
proceed
presented
initial
habeas
application
courts
appeals
uniformly
continue
hold
applies
successive
habeas
applications
raising
ford
claims
initial
application
failed
see
richardson
johnson
provenzano
nguyen
gibson
per
curiam
claims
suggest
appropriate
general
matter
prisoner
wait
seeking
resolution
incompetency
claim
ante
suggest
thing
contrary
admits
determine
whether
prisoner
even
allowed
bring
ford
claim
waits
bring
second
petition
ante
citing
supra
reach
tenuous
conclusion
justice
powell
opinion
constitutes
clearly
established
federal
law
ante
ignores
tension
justice
powell
concern
adversarial
proceedings
may
counterproductive
plurality
position
adversarial
proceedings
required
compare
ford
wainwright
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
stating
ordinary
adversarial
procedures
complete
live
testimony
oral
argument
counsel
necessarily
best
means
arriving
sound
consistent
judgments
defendant
sanity
plurality
opinion
discussing
importance
adversarial
procedures
including
given
contradictory
statements
difficult
say
justice
powell
opinion
merely
narrower
version
plurality
view
see
marks
application
panetti
second
bite
apple
state
question
competency
executed
panetti
previously
presented
ford
claim
state
documents
accompanied
filing
contained
nothing
relate
current
mental
state
order
case
wd
result
state
denied
relief
without
hearing
ante
federal
district
found
error
determination
order
case
argues
trial
appointment
mental
health
experts
pursuant
article
confirmed
panetti
made
threshold
showing
ante
state
made
finding
may
proceeded
simply
abundance
caution
perhaps
humor
federal
district
stay
ed
execution
days
allow
state
reasonable
period
time
consider
evidence
panetti
current
mental
state
order
case
app
event
question
today
whether
panetti
met
texas
threshold
whether
met
constitutional
one
avoid
answering
question
relying
related
determination
panetti
counsel
reached
reasonable
conclusion
allegations
warranted
response
ante
fails
note
brief
response
apart
motions
panetti
never
requested
opportunity
respond
panetti
criticized
experts
visiting
conducting
psychological
testing
failing
review
collateral
information
adequately
failing
take
account
history
mental
problems
abbreviated
nature
conclusions
objections
experts
report
renewed
motion
funds
hire
expert
investigator
renewed
motion
competency
hearing
cause
gillespie
jud
may
app
hereinafter
objection
experts
report
assert
panetti
actually
constitutional
right
evidentiary
hearing
motions
granted
discussed
justice
powell
concurrence
specifically
rejected
ford
plurality
contention
adversarial
proceeding
constitutionally
required
even
appropriate
part
supra
even
cursory
look
panetti
motions
shows
state
err
refusing
grant
never
recognized
right
experts
counsel
state
habeas
review
cf
ex
parte
motion
prepayment
funds
hire
mental
health
expert
assist
defense
article
proceedings
cause
app
defendant
motion
appointment
counsel
assist
article
proceedings
ex
parte
motion
prepayment
funds
hire
investigator
assist
defense
counsel
cause
likewise
right
transcribed
proceedings
videotaped
examinations
specific
protocols
conducting
competency
evaluations
cf
motion
videotape
competency
examinations
scott
panetti
conducted
mental
health
experts
cause
motion
transcribe
proceedings
related
competency
determination
article
cause
motion
seeking
order
setting
protocol
conducting
competency
evaluations
scott
panetti
cause
discussed
panetti
clearly
established
constitutional
right
formal
oral
hearing
part
supra
much
less
right
discovery
cf
defendant
motion
discovery
cause
motion
ensure
article
final
competency
hearing
comports
procedural
due
process
requirements
ford
cause
app
fails
identify
bona
fide
constitutional
violation
provides
laundry
list
perceived
deficiencies
proceedings
ante
appears
state
repeated
occasions
conveyed
information
petitioner
counsel
turned
true
provided
least
one
significant
update
state
without
providing
notice
petitioner
failed
general
keep
petitioner
informed
opportunity
present
case
state
request
name
mental
health
experts
parties
ultimately
chose
experts
without
input
parties
ante
canceled
status
conference
failed
give
panetti
notice
ante
also
never
explicitly
ruled
panetti
motions
despite
statements
later
ante
panetti
argue
experts
impartial
explain
canceled
status
conference
caused
harm
finally
although
might
better
state
rule
explicitly
panetti
outstanding
motions
implicitly
denied
dismissing
claim
state
failure
keep
petitioner
informed
experts
report
issued
judge
sent
letter
counsel
made
clear
panetti
one
last
chance
submit
information
app
short
none
perceived
deficiencies
qualifies
violation
clearly
established
federal
law
justice
marshall
plurality
opinion
ford
even
go
far
state
uniform
national
substantive
standard
insanity
thus
open
question
much
discretion
setting
substantive
standard
insanity
points
ford
opinions
nowhere
indicate
delusions
irrelevant
sion
ness
impair
prisoner
concept
reality
reach
rational
understanding
reason
execution
ante
token
nowhere
ford
opinions
suggested
comprehen
sion
aware
ness
necessarily
affected
delusions
impair
prisoner
refuses
acknowledge
ford
simply
resolve
question
one
way
contrary
suggestion
state
factual
record
genuine
impediment
analyzing
constitutional
question
see
ante
eighth
amendment
framework
requires
relatively
academic
abstract
analysis
specific
facts
regarding
panetti
condition
simply
irrelevant
eighth
amendment
requires