Butler v. Quarterman, No. 4:2007cv02103 - Document 48 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Opposed MOTION for Relief from Judgment. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION STEVEN ANTHONY BUTLER, § § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-2103 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Steven Anthony Butler is a Texas death row inmate. filed a motion for relief from judgment. For the He has following reasons, Butler's motion will be denied. Background I . Butler was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for murdering the cashier of a dry cleaning store during the course of a robbery. The Texas Court of Criminal affirmed Butler's conviction and sentence, Appeals Butler v. ("TCCA") State, 790 S.W.2d 661(Tex. Crim. App. 1990), and denied his application for post-conviction relief, Ex parte Butler, No. 41,121-01 (Tex. Crim. App. April 28, 1999). On June 19, 2003, Butler filed a successive state habeas application arguing that the Eighth Amendment barred his execution because he is mentally retarded, see Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), along with several other claims. The TCCA remanded the Atkins claim to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and dismissed the other claims as an abuse of the writ. On March 30, 2007, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended denying relief on Butler's Atkins On claim. June 27, 2007, the adopted those findings and conclusions and denied relief. day Butler filed his federal habeas petition, 2007, he filed an amended petition. TCCA The same and on August 30, On September 4, 2008, this Court denied Butler's amended petition but granted a certificate of appealability on his Atkins claim. On April 1, 2013, Butler filed this motion for relief from the judgment of this court under Rule 60(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Ci viI Procedure. Butler seeks relief from that portion of the judgment denying relief on his Atkins claim. II. Rule 60 (b) (6) Analysis provides that a court may grant relief from a judgment for any reason that justifies relief. Butler notes that Dr. George Denkowski, who testified as an expert for the State in Butler's Atkins hearing, has been censured by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists professional standards. ("the Board") for violating Among the sanctions imposed is a ban on Denkowski conducting any further evaluations for mental retardation in criminal proceedings. Rule 60(b) motion, Appendix 1. -2- Butler now argues that the findings of the Board undermine Denkowski's conclusions in this case, and require relief from this Court's judgment denying relief on Butler's Atkins claim. As noted in this Court's Memorandum and Order denying Butler's petition, requires under (1) Texas law, a diagnosis of mental retardation significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, (2) deficits in adaptive functioning, and (3) onset before age 18. Butler correctly points out that this Court's conclusion that Butler failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the state court's finding that he does not have significantly sub- average intellectual functioning was unreasonable was based, large part, on in the fact that Denkowski was qualified as an expert in mental retardation, and his testimony supports the state court's findings. This Court felt compelled to do so under the extremely deferential standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). With the censure from the Board, Denkowski's opinions are now deserving of no weight, thus calling into serious question this Court's conclusion on the question of Butler's intellectual functioning. As noted above, however, a showing requires proof of all three elements: intellectual functioning, onset before age 18. conclusion that of mental retardation significantly sub-average deficits in adaptive functioning, and In addition to finding that the state court's Butler did not -3- have significantly sub-average intellectual functioning was reasonable, this Court also found reasonable the state court's conclusion that Butler does not have deficits in adaptive functioning. Butler now argues that the trial court's conclusions on this point were also heavily influenced by Denkowski's opinions. A review of this Court's previous Memorandum and Order makes clear that the state habeas court relied on substantial evidence other than Denkowski's Moreover, opinion. this Court virtually no weight to Denkowski's opinion on this issue. this Court found supported by, that the state court's among other things, conclusion gave Instead, was amply Butler's trial testimony, his employment history, his ability to maintain his personal hygiene, his ability to form and maintain friendships, reading material found in his Memorandum and Order at 36-49. not significantly functioning, Butler impact still death row and the level of cell. See generally, Because the Denkowski censure does the analysis fails to of Butler's demonstrate that adaptive the state habeas court's ultimate conclusion that he is not mentally retarded "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States U or (2) "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) Butler is not entitled to relief from the judgment. -4- Therefore, III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Pursuant to Federal Butler's Motion for Relief From Rule (Docket Entry No. 42) is DENIED. of Civil Procedure 60 (b) (6) No certificate of appealability shall issue. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 2~~ day of March, 2014. , SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
