Briseno factors in Pennsylvania

2015Further, the court concluded appellee suffered from major deficiencies in adaptive functioning, finding he was significantly limited in: (1) communication, (2) functional academics, (3) self-direction, (4) social/interpersonal skills, and (5) leisure. 12 Notably, in a footnote within its discussion of social skills, the court applied the Briseno factors 13 we first cited in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 619 Pa. 70 , 58 A.3d 62 (2012).

2015Further, the court concluded appellee suffered from major deficiencies in adaptive functioning, finding he was significantly limited in: (1) communication, (2) functional academics, (3) self-direction, (4) social/interpersonal skills, and (5) leisure. 12 Notably, in a footnote within its discussion of social skills, the court applied the Briseno factors 13 we first cited in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 619 Pa. 70 , 58 A.3d 62 (2012).

2021Although Flor was not placed in special education classes, he required support in all academic subjects, was placed in remedial classes, failed these remedial classes, and eventually dropped out of school altogether.75 Whether the school provided special education opportunities to Flor is not the exclusive means of 71 PCRA Ct. Op. at 118-123. 72 Moore-I, 137 S.Ct. at 1052 ; Cox, 204 A.3d at 388 (likewise holding that relying upon “[t]he ability of lay persons to recognize intellectual disability” was clearly erroneous). 73 PCRA Ct. Op. at 131. 74 137 S.Ct. at 1051-52 ; see also Cox, 204 A.3d a

2021Although Flor was not placed in special education classes, he required support in all academic subjects, was placed in remedial classes, failed these remedial classes, and eventually dropped out of school altogether.75 Whether the school provided special education opportunities to Flor is not the exclusive means of 71 PCRA Ct. Op. at 118-123. 72 Moore-I, 137 S.Ct. at 1052 ; Cox, 204 A.3d at 388 (likewise holding that relying upon “[t]he ability of lay persons to recognize intellectual disability” was clearly erroneous). 73 PCRA Ct. Op. at 131. 74 137 S.Ct. at 1051-52 ; see also Cox, 204 A.3d a

2021Although Flor was not placed in special education classes, he required support in all academic subjects, was placed in remedial classes, failed these remedial classes, and eventually dropped out of school altogether.75 Whether the school provided special education opportunities to Flor is not the exclusive means of 71 PCRA Ct. Op. at 118-123. 72 Moore-I, 137 S.Ct. at 1052 ; Cox, 204 A.3d at 388 (likewise holding that relying upon “[t]he ability of lay persons to recognize intellectual disability” was clearly erroneous). 73 PCRA Ct. Op. at 131. 74 137 S.Ct. at 1051-52 ; see also Cox, 204 A.3d a

2021Although Flor was not placed in special education classes, he required support in all academic subjects, was placed in remedial classes, failed these remedial classes, and eventually dropped out of school altogether.75 Whether the school provided special education opportunities to Flor is not the exclusive means of 71 PCRA Ct. Op. at 118-123. 72 Moore-I, 137 S.Ct. at 1052 ; Cox, 204 A.3d at 388 (likewise holding that relying upon “[t]he ability of lay persons to recognize intellectual disability” was clearly erroneous). 73 PCRA Ct. Op. at 131. 74 137 S.Ct. at 1051-52 ; see also Cox, 204 A.3d a

2012In a divided decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the claim, noting that the Briseno court had fashioned the evidentiary factors “as a means ‘of developing the constitutional restriction’ set out in Atkins ” and that “on their face, nothing about them contradicts Atkins , as they were developed explicitly to comply with Atkins.” Chester v. Thaler, 666 F.3d 340, 346-47 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 525 , 184 L.Ed.2d 338 (2012).

2012In a divided decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the claim, noting that the Briseno court had fashioned the evidentiary factors “as a means ‘of developing the constitutional restriction’ set out in Atkins ” and that “on their face, nothing about them contradicts Atkins , as they were developed explicitly to comply with Atkins.” Chester v. Thaler, 666 F.3d 340, 346-47 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 525 , 184 L.Ed.2d 338 (2012).

2012Id. at 40 (pinpoint citations omitted). 10 The Commonwealth concludes its brief by proffering its application of the Briseno factors to this case: there is no indication that anyone who knew appellee during his developmental years identified him as mentally retarded; the murders here involved prior planning and premeditation, rational (albeit criminal and socially unacceptable) thinking, and follow-through; pre-Atkins records suggested that appel-lee was self-directed and a leader (or had leadership potential); appellee never displayed difficulty understanding or responding to questioning; and

2012Id. at 40 (pinpoint citations omitted). 10 The Commonwealth concludes its brief by proffering its application of the Briseno factors to this case: there is no indication that anyone who knew appellee during his developmental years identified him as mentally retarded; the murders here involved prior planning and premeditation, rational (albeit criminal and socially unacceptable) thinking, and follow-through; pre-Atkins records suggested that appel-lee was self-directed and a leader (or had leadership potential); appellee never displayed difficulty understanding or responding to questioning; and