Tommy Sharp, Interim Warden v. Roderick L. Smith

Oklahoma juries sentenced Roderick Lynn Smith to death initially and following a retrial on the penalty. Prior to Smith’s resentencing, a jury found at the conclusion of a six-day trial that he was not intellectually disabled for purposes of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). In 2007, on appeal from Smith’s Atkins trial, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) upheld the jury’s verdict, finding that the State had presented persuasive evidence to refute Smith’s claim of significant limitations in his adaptive functioning (“adaptive-functioning prong”). Smith’s death sentences subsequently became final in 2014. The Tenth Circuit granted Smith habeas relief. The court sua sponte determined that the OCCA’s discussion of the adaptive-functioning evidence was too “cursory” to constitute a merits adjudication, such that the court would review the adaptive-functioning prong de novo. The court further concluded that application of Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039 (2017) (“Moore I ”), and Moore v. Texas, 139 S.Ct. 666 (2019) (“Moore II ”), was not barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), because these cases were mere applications of Atkins that did not announce new rules. Applying Moore I and Moore II, the court held that no rational trier of fact could have found that Smith did not meet the adaptive-functioning prong. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Tenth Circuit err in concluding that Moore I and Moore II were mere applications of Atkins that could be applied retroactively on collateral review,