| State v. Ceja (Ceja III),
126 Ariz. 35, 612 P.2d 491 (1980) PROCEDURAL
POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of two
counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Arizona
Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Ceja I, 113 Ariz. 39, 546
P.2d 6 (1976). After a retrial, the defendant was again convicted on both counts and
sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court again affirmed the convictions and
sentences. Ceja II, 115 Ariz. 413, 565 P.2d 1274 (1977). The case was remanded
for resentencing pursuant to State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253
(1978). The defendant was again sentenced to death and this is his automatic, direct
appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Not Found. Evidence was
inconclusive on whether the victims suffered.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Two people were shot several times by the defendant
in a drug rip-off. Victim Randy Leon was shot several times and kicked in the head
repeatedly after death. Victim Linda Leon was initially shot twice in the chest, dragged
to another room, and shot four more times in the head. This "barrage of
violence" beyond that necessary to steal or kill indicates a cruel or depraved nature
apart from the norm.
Mutilation: See gratuitous violence.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
None sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The
Court found that the defendant failed to prove the following mitigating
circumstance:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment - [brain
damage from marijuana and paint sniffing]
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Jordan (Jordan
II), 126 Ariz. 283, 614 P.2d 825 (1980)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in Jordan I, 114
Ariz. 452, 561 P.2d 1224 (1976). The case was remanded for resentencing pursuant to State
v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978). The death sentence was reimposed and
this is the defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
The Court rejected the defendant's argument that convictions must occur before
the commission of the murder for which he received death sentence. The Court also rejected
the defendant's argument that convictions are not final because they are being
collaterally attacked by means of petitions for habeas corpus. Until a prior
conviction is set aside, it may be used to enhance a sentence, though invalid prior
convictions may not be used as an aggravating circumstance to support the death penalty.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
The defendant was previously convicted four times in Texas. The Court rejected
the defendant's argument that since the Texas convictions were entered after the murder,
those prior convictions should not count for the (F)(2) aggravating circumstance. The
Court also found that a conviction occurs at the time judgment of conviction is
entered, and that a conviction for another offense may be an aggravating circumstance even
if both the offense and conviction occur after the murder which is being punished. State
v. Steelman, 126 Ariz. 19, 612 P.2d 475 (1980). The Court also stated that a
prior conviction may be used as an (F)(2) aggravating circumstance even though an appeal
is pending for the prior conviction, because it remains in effect until set aside.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
None sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The
Court found that the defendant failed to prove the existence of the
following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment - Alcohol or drugs
Felony murder/Lack of intent
Cooperation with state authorities
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Clark, 126 Ariz.
428, 616 P.2d 888 (1980)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Cochise) of four counts of first-degree murder. He was
sentenced to death on each count. This is his automatic appeal to the Arizona Supreme
Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(3) (Grave Risk of Death to Others) - REVERSED
The evidence showed that the wife was in another room when the defendant shot the
husband. The defendant then went and shot the wife. "Even given the ricocheting of
bullets, [the wife] was not close enough to be within any sort of 'zone of danger.'"
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
The defendant worked as a wrangler on a ranch near Elfrida, Arizona for a year
prior to the murders. On the day of the murders, he stabbed to death an older wrangler and
then shot a younger wrangler before shooting the couple who owned the ranch. He then stole
the couple's car, slashed the tires on the remaining vehicles, and left with credit cards,
guns, jewelry and a saddle. The defense argued that the (F)(5) aggravator applied only to
"hired gun" killings. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation by noting
that if the receipt of money is a cause of the murder, then the aggravator has been
established. [Note: Justice Gordon wrote a concurring opinion arguing
that (F)(4) and (F)(5) apply only to hired killing situations. He argued that this new
expansive definition will apply to cases where a killing occurs during a robbery, and if
the Legislature had desired that effect, it could have been accomplished with more
precise, specific language.]
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Reversed. No evidence that any of
the four victims suffered any pain. The fatal wounds appear to have been delivered at
vital body parts and death ensued quickly.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Relishing: The defendant killed four human beings without justification
or excuse. Two of them had provided a home and work for him after his release from a
juvenile correctional institution. The third victim was supposed to be a friend of the
defendant. The defendant's state of mind was illustrated by his comment, "[y]ou
should have seen Charley when I hit him with those cutters." The defendant also kept
a spent bullet as a grisly souvenir of his crime.
Senselessness: See Relishing, above.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
None sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The
Court noted, without further discussion, that the defendant argued the following as
mitigating circumstances:
Mental Impairment [emotional problems
produced by antisocial personality]
Age
Difficult childhood/Family history
Lack of criminal record
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
State v. Bishop (Bishop
II), 127 Ariz. 531, 622 P.2d 478 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted of first-degree murder in Superior Court (Maricopa) and sentenced to death.
On appeal, the conviction and sentence were affirmed. Bishop I, 118 Ariz. 263,
576 P.2d 122 (1978). The case was remanded for resentencing pursuant to State v.
Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978) and the death sentence was reimposed.
This is the defendant's automatic direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, consolidated
with a review of the denial of the defendant's Rule 32 petition.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Reversed. It is unclear whether the
trial court made a separate cruelty finding, but the Court states that the evidence does
not support a cruelty finding. The medical examiner testified that the victim would have
been incapable of feeling pain after the first blows to the head with the claw hammer. The
victim thrashed about and made gasping sounds, but according to medical testimony, would
not have been conscious of pain.
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. After striking one victim several times with
a hammer, the defendant removed personal items from one victim, tied his legs together and
dragged him to the edge of a mineshaft, then threw rocks on top of the victim as he lay
twitching at the bottom of the mineshaft.
Relishing: Found. After throwing rocks on top of the victim's body in a
mineshaft, the defendant cleaned up the area along with his codefendants, and as he drove
away in the victim's car, he said "[g]oodbye Norman. I hope we never see you
again."
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Lack of Criminal History
Cooperation with police
Low Intelligence/Lack of Education
The Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(2) Duress
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Greenawalt,
128 Ariz. 150, 624 P.2d 828 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Yuma) of four counts of first-degree murder, two counts
of armed robbery, three counts of kidnapping, and one count of theft of a motor vehicle.
He was sentenced to death on each of the murder counts. This is his automatic, direct
appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
The Court held that certified copies of prior first-degree murder convictions
satisfy (F)(1) because those crimes are punishable by life imprisonment or death in
Arizona.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
The Court held that the photographs of the crime scene and testimony of law
enforcement officials concerning the details of the prior crimes of violence (first-degree
murder and robbery) committed by the defendant were highly relevant to the determination
of whether a crime of violence had occurred, and thus were properly received by the trial
court.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
None sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The
Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence any of the following mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) - Significant impairment
(G)(2) - Duress
(G)(3) - Minor participation
(G)(4) - Death not reasonably foreseeable
JUDGMENT: Death sentences affirmed.
State v. Superior
Court (Gretzler II), 128 Ariz. 583, 627 P.2d 1081 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The
Arizona Supreme Court, in Gretzler I, 126 Ariz. 60, 612 P.2d 1023 (1980),
remanded for resentencing. The state filed this special action to review the trial court's
order precluding the state from using the defendant's nine California murder convictions
as aggravating circumstances under the death penalty statute.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
The defendant's pleas to nine prior murder convictions in California were upheld
as not void, and could be used as an aggravating circumstance under (F)(1).
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
The Court held that the defendant's convictions in California of nine murders
could be used as aggravating circumstances, even though they were the result of a plea
agreement premised in part on the California court's misunderstanding that those pleas
would not affect any other charge in any other jurisdiction. The judgments were entered in
good faith and there was no indication that the defendant was purposely misled, or that he
pleaded to crimes he did not commit.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
There is no discussion of mitigating circumstances in this
opinion.
JUDGMENT: The California judgments
may be used as aggravating circumstances under the death penalty statute.
State v. Watson (Watson
III), 129 Ariz. 60, 628 P.2d 943 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death.
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but remanded for
resentencing. Watson I, 114 Ariz. 1, 559 P.2d 121 (1976). On appeal following
resentencing, the Arizona Supreme Court set aside the trial court's finding as to two
aggravating circumstances and again remanded for resentencing. Watson II, 120
Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978). The death sentence was imposed again and this is the
defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
This finding was upheld based on a robbery conviction.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
This finding was upheld based on a robbery conviction.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed and were sufficiently substantial to call for leniency in this case:
Model Prisoner
Age [21 years old at time of murder]
Victim's actions [evidence supports a finding that victim shot first (twice)]
Sentencing Disparity [codefendant received a life sentence]
JUDGMENT: Sentence reduced to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years, due to mitigation.
State v. Vickers (Vickers
I (Ponciano murder)), 129 Ariz. 506,633 P.2d 315 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Pinal) of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - UPHELD
Prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under former A.R.S. §13-249
was sufficient to establish this aggravating circumstance.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - UPHELD
Prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under former A.R.S. §13-249
was sufficient to establish this aggravating circumstance.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Not addressed
Heinous or Depraved: Upheld.
Gratuitous Violence: Found. The Court found that the evidence of the
numerous stab wounds, in addition to the carving of the word "Bonzai" in the
victim's back reflected a mental state "marked by debasement." The cause of
death was strangulation and the body sustained ten to twelve puncture wounds.
Mutilation: Found. The defendant carved the word "Bonzai" in
the victim's back.
(F)(7) (Murder Committed while in Custody) - UPHELD
The defendant murdered his cellmate while incarcerated at the Arizona State
Prison. The (F)(7) finding was not contested on appeal.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstance
existed, but was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Age [20 year-old at time of crime]
The Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the following mitigating circumstance:
(G)(1) - Significant Impairment [evidence
proffered was of sociopathic/psychopathic personality].
The Court found that the following did not constitute a
mitigating circumstance:
Shared responsibility of prison officials for the
death of victim
JUDGMENT: Conviction and death
sentence affirmed.
State v. Ricky Tison
(Ricky Tison I), 129 Ariz. 526, 633 P.2d 335 (1981)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant
was convicted in Superior Court (Yuma) of four counts of first-degree murder, three counts
of kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery and theft of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced
to death on the murder counts. This is his automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme
Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(1) (Prior Life or Death Felony) - DISCUSSED
The Court stated that the (F)(1) finding should have been made by trial court.
The defendant was convicted of seventeen counts of assault with a deadly weapon for the
events that took place at the prison in Florence and at his capture in Pinal County. The
trial court believed that these charges could have been brought in a single information or
indictment along with the charges in this case. The Court found that this viewpoint unduly
limits the statutory reach of the legislation. These were separate criminal offenses,
which took place at the prison and at the roadblock. They were punishable by life
imprisonment and should have been considered as (F)(1) aggravating circumstances.
(F)(2) (Prior Violent Felony) - DISCUSSED
See discussion under (F)(1), above. These convictions would support both the
(F)(1) and the (F)(2) aggravating circumstances. The felony convictions of assault
necessarily involved the kind of violent behavior against which this aggravating
circumstance is directed. Although some of these crimes occurred after the offenses now on
review, they would still be sufficient to support an (F)(2) finding. The consideration of
these convictions as aggravating circumstances serves the legitimate purpose of the
statute to evaluate the character and propensities of the defendant.
(F)(3) (Grave Risk of Death to Others) - REVERSED
Because the four victims who were in the car the defendants wanted to steal to
continue their escape from prison were "ruthlessly and intentionally murdered,"
this aggravating circumstance did not exist, even though some of the victims had been
close enough physically so that each murder put others in a grave risk of danger.
(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD
Ricky Wayne Tison and his two brothers, Raymond and Donald, assisted in the
escape of their father, Gary Tison, and Randy Greenawalt from the Arizona State Prison.
After having car trouble, the group flagged down the victims, exchanged items between the
defendants' car and the victims' car, stole some money and weapons from the victims, and
all four victims were shot to death. The evidence indicated that the victims' car was
stopped only after the defendants' car broke down. The victims' car and other property
were stolen. The defendant indicated that the entire purpose of stopping the victims' car
was to obtain an automobile. Because the Court had previously determined that this
aggravating circumstance existed outside of hired killer situations under State v.
Clark, 126 Ariz. 428, 616 P.2d 888 (1980), and that this circumstance could be found
in a robbery-murder, it held that these murders were committed for financial gain.
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Mental Anguish: Found. There was no evidence offered regarding pain
suffered by the victims other than the medical testimony indicating that Theresa Tyson did
not die instantly, but bled to death. However, the sentencing judge found that the victims
must have experienced a great deal of mental anguish by being moved from the highway at
gunpoint with the fear tat they would be killed, and by witnessing the murders of other
family members. The Court found this analysis reasonable, but did not base its
(F)(6)
finding solely on cruelty, as it also found the murders to be heinous and depraved.
Physical Pain: See Mental anguish.
Heinous and Depraved: Upheld.
Senselessness: Found. The Court found these murders to be heinous and
depraved because of the senselessness of the murders, the inability of the victims to stop
the escape in such an isolated area, and the fact that a young child who posed no threat
to the captors was shot in the arms of his mother. There were less violent alternatives
available to prevent the captors' detection by the authorities than to slaughter the
entire family. These demonstrate that the slayers had a shockingly evil state of mind.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Age
Felony Murder conviction
Lack of Criminal History
The Court found that the defendant failed to prove the
existence of the following as mitigating circumstances:
Duress
Minor Participation
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences
affirmed.
Back to Top |