SCHRIRO, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. SMITH

546US1 Unit: $$U2 [10-26-06 15:23:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN
6 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

546US1 Unit: $$U2 [10-26-06 15:23:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN
7 Cite as: 546 U. S. 6 (2005)
Per Curiam
evidence in mitigation during the sentencing phase of his
trial showing that he had low intelligence.
The District Court denied Smith’s petition for habeas cor
pus in 1996. Following several rounds of appeals, remands,
and petitions for certiorari to this Court (including one suc
cessful petition by the State, see Stewart v. Smith, 536 U. S.
856 (2002) (per curiam)), and after we had issued our de
cision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), the case
returned to the Ninth Circuit. Shortly thereafter, Smith
asserted in briefing that he is mentally retarded and cannot,
under Atkins, be executed. The Ninth Circuit ordered sus
pension of all federal habeas proceedings and directed Smith
to “institute proceedings in the proper trial court of Arizona
to determine whether the state is prohibited from executing
[Smith] in accordance with Atkins.” App. to Pet. for Cert.
A–2. The court further ordered that the issue whether
Smith is mentally retarded must “be determined . . . by a
jury trial unless the right to a jury is waived by the par
ties.” Ibid.
The State’s petition for certiorari is granted,* the judg
ment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is
remanded. The Ninth Circuit erred in commanding the Ari
zona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental
retardation claim. Atkins stated in clear terms that “ ‘we
leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways
to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] ex
ecution of sentences.’ ” 536 U. S., at 317 (quoting Ford v.
Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 416–417 (1986); modifications in
original). States, including Arizona, have responded to that
challenge by adopting their own measures for adjudicating
claims of mental retardation. While those measures might,
in their application, be subject to constitutional challenge,
Arizona had not even had a chance to apply its chosen proce
*Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is also granted.

546US1 Unit: $$U2 [10-26-06 15:23:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN
8 SCHRIRO v. SMITH
Per Curiam
dures when the Ninth Circuit pre-emptively imposed its jury
trial condition.
Because the Court of Appeals exceeded its limited author
ity on habeas review, the judgment below is vacated, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.