Clark v. State: Mississippi Supreme Court Abolishes Procedural Waiver for First-Time Atkins Claims

Introduction

In Tony Terrell Clark v. State of Mississippi, decided on 19 June 2025, the Mississippi Supreme Court confronted a crucial post-conviction question: may a capital defendant who never raised an intellectual-disability (Atkins) claim at trial or on direct appeal be barred from doing so in his first post-conviction motion? The Court answered “no,” holding that the familiar procedural-waiver doctrine must yield where enforcing it risks the unconstitutional execution of an intellectually disabled person. Because the record contained expert affidavits indicating that Clark’s IQ is in the mid-60s and that he exhibits substantial adaptive-behavior deficits originating before age 18, the Court granted relief in part and remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing in the circuit court. All other claims—ineffective assistance, Batson, jury-wheel irregularities, aggravator challenges, and cumulative error—were denied.

Summary of the Judgment

Narrow Holding: A first-time Atkins claim is not procedurally barred even if it was “capable of being raised” earlier, because the Eighth Amendment categorically forbids executing intellectually disabled offenders.
Disposition: Post-conviction relief granted in part; remand for an evidentiary (Atkins) hearing; all other grounds denied.
Vote: Majority opinion by Sullivan, J.; separate opinions by Randolph, C.J. (concurring in part) and King, P.J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) – Established the Eighth-Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled persons. Forms the substantive basis for Clark’s claim.
Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (2017) – Reaffirmed that states must employ medically informed standards when adjudicating intellectual disability; cited to stress constitutional stakes.
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) – Recognized the standard-error range around IQ scores; relevant to Clark’s IQ of 64–65.
Chase v. State line of cases (2004–2015) – Mississippi’s iterative articulation of Atkins criteria; invoked as doctrinal template for remand.
Batiste v. State, 184 So. 3d 290 (Miss. 2016) – Confirms entitlement to an in-court opportunity when a claim “substantially shows” the denial of a constitutional right; supplied procedural vehicle for remand.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) – Governing test for ineffective assistance; applied to multiple subsidiary claims.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) – Framework for jury-selection discrimination; invoked for Clark’s ineffective-assistance/Batson challenge.
Mississippi precedents on procedural default (Havard, Lockett) – Discussed but ultimately subordinated to Atkins concerns.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Heightened Scrutiny in Capital PCR Matters
Building on Powers v. State, the Court reiterated that in death-penalty post-conviction review, “bona fide doubts are resolved in favor of the accused.” That analytical lens set the stage for relaxing procedural bars.
Waiver vs. Substantive Constitutional Bar
The State argued that Clark “waived” an Atkins claim by not raising it at trial. The Court rejected that contention, stressing that enforcing waiver could lead to an impermissible execution. Citing Moore and Atkins, the majority held that constitutional supremacy outweighs procedural default where intellectual disability is credibly alleged. This pronouncement crystallizes a per se exception to Mississippi’s usual waiver doctrine in the Atkins context.
Threshold Showing Met
Clark tendered three expert affidavits indicating IQ scores of 64–65, adaptive deficits, and onset before 18. The Court “accepted well-pleaded allegations as true” at the PCR screening stage and found the showing “substantial” enough to warrant a live hearing under Batiste.
No Ruling on the Merits of Disability
Consistent with Chase III, the Supreme Court refrained from fact-finding and directed the circuit judge to determine credibility, resolve conflicting IQ evidence, and apply the statutory/prior-case criteria.
Rejection of All Other Claims
For ineffective-assistance, Batson, mitigation, jury-wheel, aggravator, racial-bias voir dire, instructional, and cumulative-error challenges, the Court applied orthodox standards (Strickland, res judicata) and found no “reasonable probability” of a different outcome.

3. Likely Impact of the Decision

Procedural Landscape: Defendants who did not assert intellectual-disability claims earlier may now raise them in first PCR petitions without fear of procedural default. Counsel will therefore reassess strategic timing, and trial courts may confront more requests for retrospective disability determinations.
Judicial Economy vs. Constitutional Mandate: While the ruling may increase evidentiary hearings, it ensures compliance with the Eighth Amendment and minimizes the risk of wrongful execution.
Guidance to Lower Courts: Circuit judges are reminded that they—not the Supreme Court—make the ultimate factual call at an Atkins hearing, but must follow medically informed criteria.
Influence Beyond Mississippi: Other jurisdictions holding tight procedural bars may look to Mississippi’s approach as persuasive authority when balancing waiver doctrines against categorical constitutional protections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Atkins Claim: A request to bar execution of a defendant on the ground that he is intellectually disabled. Requires proof of (1) IQ roughly ≤70, (2) significant adaptive-behavior deficits, (3) onset before age 18, and (4) no malingering.
Procedural Waiver / Default: Rules that prevent litigants from raising claims in post-conviction proceedings if those claims could—and should—have been raised earlier. Clark refines an exception for Atkins claims.
Strickland Test: Two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: (1) deficient performance, and (2) prejudice (a reasonable probability of a different result).
Batson Challenge: An objection alleging that the opposing party excluded jurors on the basis of race. Requires a three-step hearing: prima facie case, race-neutral explanation, and judicial finding of discrimination.
Aggravating Factor – “Avoiding Arrest”: A circumstance the prosecution uses to qualify a homicide for the death penalty; asserted when killings are allegedly committed to prevent detection. Clark argued it was overly broad.
Heightened Scrutiny: A more exacting appellate review standard in capital cases, resolving close doubts in favor of the defendant because “death is different.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision in Clark v. State establishes a significant procedural safeguard: first-time Atkins claims may not be dismissed on waiver grounds in post-conviction proceedings. By prioritizing the Eighth Amendment’s categorical bar over the State’s interest in finality, the Court underscored the constitutional imperative that no intellectually disabled person be executed. Although Clark still bears the burden of proof at a forthcoming evidentiary hearing, the ruling paves the way for fuller factual exploration in his and similar cases. In so holding, the Court reaffirmed that procedural rules, however important, must bend when they collide with fundamental constitutional protections.