Facts and Procedural Disposition of the Case in the Lower Court Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statutes) contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, therefore, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 of the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years he fought his conviction, filing "a motion to vacate, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and a petition for relief enforcement, all denied.” In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court's ruling, a decision granted. when the court found Hall "entitled to a hearing on the question of his absence from the courtroom and whether he had deliberately circumvented his ineffectiveness. However, the lower courts granted him no reprieve, and Hall petitioned the Supreme Court for a relief based on Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987), a case in which the Court ruled that “all mitigating factors, not just statutory mitigation, should be considered by the judge and jury.” The Court did not find that Hall had a proper plea, and the governor of Florida signed Hall's second death warrant in September 1988. When Hall submitted his second plea to the Court, again alleging a procedural error under Hitchcock, this time it ruled that a mistake had been made. had occurred and granted him a new sentencing proceeding. At the 1993 trial, the court found Hall mentally retarded but competent enough to stand trial; condemned him to death again. In 2002, the Court decided Atkins and opened the door for defendants to challenge their sentence using the Atkins claims. Hall filed that motion in 2004, but the evidentiary hearing to review mental retardation... half of the document... Claims of Mental Retardation, 39 HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY 1, 1-173 (2011).Tobolowsky, supra at 47 .FLA. STAT. ANN. § 921.137(1) Appellant's Brief at 10, Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882 (2013).Id. at 7 (citing Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. Dec. 20, 2012)).Id. Appellant's Brief, supra at 8 (citing Hall 109 So.3d at 714). Brief of Respondent, supra at 9Brief of Petitioner, supra at 8 (citing Hall 109 So.3d at 714).David Wechsler, WAIS IV Administrative and Scoring Manuel (2008), at http://ux1.eiu.edu/~glcanivez /Adobe%20pdf/ Publications-Papers/Canivez%20(2010)%20Buros%20MMY%20WAIS-IV%20Review.pdfBrief of the appellant, above at 10Brief of the appellant, above at 13.Brief of the defendant, above at 9.Tobolowsky, above at 10.Id . at 11 (citing Atkins, 536 US at 308)Id. (citing Atkins, 536 US at 317, n.22).