Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 00-20915
__________________
ROBERT JAMES TENNARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
______________________________________________
January 3, 2003
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
The Supreme Court of the United States, by order in No. 02-5164, Tennard v. Cockrell,
123 S.Ct. 70, 71 USLW 3233 (U.S. Oct 07, 2002), granted appellant's petition for a writ of

certiorari, vacated the judgment,1 and remanded it to us for further consideration in light of
Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), which was decided after the issuance of our opinion in
this case. In Atkins, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the application
of the death penalty to mentally retarded persons. Tennard has never argued that the Eighth
Amendment prohibits his execution. Instead, Tennard argued that the jury instructions did not
provide a vehicle for giving mitigating effect to his evidence of mental retardation in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, because Tennard has not raised the Eighth Amendment
claim addressed in Atkins, such a claim is not properly before us. Cf. Smith v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d
661, 684 (5th Cir. 2002) (declining to address Atkins claim raised for the first time on appeal);
Smith v. Bowersox, 311 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to address Atkins claim because
petitioner did not raise an Eighth Amendment claim in his federal habeas petition).
Accordingly, we reinstate our panel opinion and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
ENDRECORD
1 Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2002).
2

Dennis, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Although I agree with the panel majority that Tennard's claim under Atkins v. Virginia,
536 U.S. 304 (2002), is not properly before this court because petitioner did not raise this claim in
his district court habeas petition, I continue to dissent from the now restored panel opinion,
Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2002), for the reasons given in my dissent there.

3