Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/217

 546US1

Unit: $$U2

6

[10-26-06 15:23:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005 Per Curiam

SCHRIRO, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. SMITH on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04–1475. Decided October 17, 2005 Respondent Smith was convicted of murder, kidnaping, and sexual assault and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were afﬁrmed on direct appeal, and state postconviction relief was denied. In none of these proceedings did Smith argue that he was mentally retarded or that such retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty. Smith then sought federal habeas relief. After this Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, Smith began to assert that he is mentally retarded and cannot, under Atkins, be executed. The Ninth Circuit ordered suspension of all federal habeas proceedings, directed Smith to institute proceedings in the proper Arizona trial court, and ordered that the issue whether Smith is mentally retarded be determined by jury trial. Held: The Ninth Circuit exceeded its limited habeas authority in com­ manding the Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental retardation claim. Atkins makes clear that “the task of devel­ oping appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [States’] execution of sentences” falls to the States in the ﬁrst instance. 536 U. S., at 317. Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Per Curiam. In 1982, an Arizona jury convicted respondent Robert Douglas Smith of ﬁrst-degree murder, kidnaping, and sex­ ual assault. He was sentenced to death. The convictions and sentence were afﬁrmed on direct appeal, and Smith’s state petitions for postconviction relief proved unsuccessful. Smith then ﬁled a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. In none of these proceedings did Smith argue that he was men­ tally retarded or that his mental retardation made him ineli­ gible for the death penalty. Smith had, however, presented