Ruling Reverses Denial of Habeas Petition in Light of Atkins v. Virginia
(Los Angeles, CA) – The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, has reversed a lower court ruling that denied a habeas corpus petition filed by Paul Palalaua Tuilaepa, who is incarcerated on death row and who claims he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
The appellate court found that the Los Angeles County Superior Court erred in both rejecting the petition as procedurally barred and failing to properly assess the evidence of intellectual disability. The case has been remanded with instructions for further review.
Tuilaepa was convicted in 1987 of first-degree murder, robbery, attempted robbery, and assault with a firearm for his role in the fatal shooting of a patron during a Long Beach bar robbery. The jury sentenced him to death, and his conviction was later upheld by both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
At his penalty phase trial, a defense expert, Dr. Michael Maloney, testified that Tuilaepa’s IQ was in the low 70s, placing him in the bottom five percent of the population. However, Dr. Maloney suggested that cultural and language factors might have affected his test results, stating that Tuilaepa “probably had normal intellectual potential or near there” but suffered from educational disadvantages.
In 2016, Tuilaepa filed his third state habeas corpus petition, arguing that under Atkins v. Virginia, which prohibits the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, his death sentence was unconstitutional. He submitted expert declarations from two psychologists, Dr. James Patton and Dr. Dale Watson, diagnosing him with an intellectual disability.
The expert reports detailed significant impairments in intellectual and adaptive functioning, including:
- A childhood IQ score of 69, placing him in the “mildly retarded” range (now referred to as “extremely low”).
- Placement in special education programs due to severe learning and behavioral deficits.
- An inability to perform basic tasks, such as following household instructions, reading at grade level, or engaging in complete conversations.
- Struggles with verbal communication, leading to the use of informal sign language to express himself.
- Gullibility and vulnerability to manipulation, which experts stated made him susceptible to coercion.
Dr. Watson noted Tuilaepa’s intellectual and adaptive impairments were evident before age 18, a key requirement under Atkins.
“The evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Tuilaepa suffers from Intellectual Disability (‘ID’), as that term is defined under California law, as well as by the AAIDD [American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities] Manual and DSM-5 [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders],” Watson stated.
Additionally, Dr. Maloney, who testified at the original trial, submitted a declaration recanting aspects of his earlier testimony. He admitted that had he known more about Tuilaepa’s background—including his inability to fluently speak either Samoan or English—he would have concluded that Tuilaepa’s impairments were “not totally related to culture” but instead reflected significant intellectual disability.
Tuilaepa’s habeas petition was still pending when California voters passed Proposition 66, which aimed to streamline death penalty appeals and impose stricter procedural rules on successive habeas petitions.
In 2019, the California Supreme Court transferred the petition to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for review under the new Proposition 66 framework.
In 2020, the trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, ruling that the petition was procedurally barred because it was filed 14 years after Atkins without adequate justification and the evidence did not establish a prima facie case of intellectual disability.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the ruling, agreeing with both Tuilaepa and the California Attorney General’s Office that the trial court erred.
The court ruled that the petition was not procedurally barred under Proposition 66. The appellate court ruled that Proposition 66 allows successive habeas petitions in death penalty cases if the petitioner can demonstrate ineligibility for execution.
In their ruling, they state, “Because we conclude that Tuilaepa establishes a prima facie case for relief on the basis of intellectual disability under Atkins, he has sufficiently demonstrated at this juncture that he ‘is ineligible for the sentence’ and his petition is not barred by section 1509, subdivision (d).”
Further, the court noted that the petition established a prima facie case of intellectual disability.
The court ruled that Tuilaepa’s expert declarations met the required standard to justify further review: “At the prima facie stage, the trial court should have focused on the accuracy and significance of [Tuilaepa’s] proffered facts, rather than weighing his evidence against contrary testimony.”
Additionally, the court found that the trial court erred by improperly weighing evidence. The appellate court criticized the lower court for engaging in fact-finding rather than simply determining whether the petition warranted further review.
The ruling states: “The superior court prematurely assessed the credibility of the expert declarations and improperly substituted its own evaluation for that of the experts.”
The court mandated that the case must return to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing.
The appellate court concluded: “The order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to issue an order to show cause.”
Tuilaepa’s case will now return to Los Angeles County Superior Court, where a judge will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he qualifies for resentencing or removal from death row. The ruling ensures that his claim will be thoroughly examined before any further decisions about his fate are made.
