Alonzo Lydell Burgess v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the state court unreasonably relied on the pre-Atkins record, where evidence “was presented in an entirely different context and without the benefit of any explanation of how it would or would not be consistent with” an intellectual disability
• holding state court’s ruling was an unreasonable determination of the facts because the record was “insufficient to support its conclu sions”
• finding that the state postconviction court unreasonably determined the> facts by relying on evidence that was presented in an “entirely different context” and therefore indicated nothing substantive about the relevant issue
• ordering the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the petitioner, who had been diagnosed as “borderline mentally retarded,” was intellectually disabled under Alabama law
• \[T]he ruling of [the state court] that Burgess is not mentally retarded was an unreasonable determination of the facts in this case.\ (quotation omitted)
• “[W]e recognize that increasingly professionals in this field, such as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (formerly the American Association on Mental Retardation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).