Page:Tim Shoop, Warden v. Danny Hill.pdf/1

Rh

.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that respondent Danny Hill, who has been sentenced to death in Ohio, is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1) because the decisions of the Ohio courts concluding that he is not intellectually disabled were contrary to Supreme Court precedent that was clearly established at the time in question. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals relied repeatedly and extensively on our decision in Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. ___ (2017), which was not handed down until long after the state-court decisions.

The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Moore was plainly improper under §2254(d)(1), and we therefore vacate that decision and remand so that Hill’s claim regarding intellectual disability can be evaluated based solely on holdings of this Court that were clearly established at the relevant time.

In September 1985, 12-year old Raymond Fife set out on his bicycle for a friend’s home. When he did not arrive, his parents launched a search, and that evening his father found Raymond–naked, beaten, and burned–in a wooded field. Although alive, he had sustained horrific injuries