Styers, et al v. Stewart, et al

Filing 170

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT 160 . Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/26/12.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Lynn Styers,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14
15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25

No. CV-98-2244-PHX-JAT
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Enter Judgment Granting Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Doc. 160.) Respondents oppose the motion. (Doc. 166.) For the reasons that
follow, the motion is denied.

18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BACKGROUND
In 1989, Petitioner shot and killed the four-year-old son of a woman with whom he
shared an apartment. A jury convicted him of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first
degree murder, child abuse, and kidnapping. With respect to the murder count, the trial court
found three statutory aggravating factors: that Petitioner was an adult and the victim was
under age fifteen, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(9); that the murder was committed in the
expectation of pecuniary gain, under § 13-703(F)(5); and that the murder was committed in
an especially heinous and depraved manner, under § 13-703(F)(6).1 Finding no statutory

26
27
1

28

Arizona’s capital sentencing statute has been renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-751
but remains substantially the same. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, §§ 26, 38-41 (2d

1

mitigating factors and no non-statutory mitigating factors sufficiently substantial to call for

2

leniency, the court imposed the death penalty.

3

On direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed Petitioner’s conviction for child

4

abuse but affirmed the remaining convictions. State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 865 P.2d 765

5

(1993), cert denied, 513 U.S. 855 (1994) (“Styers I”). The court also concluded that the

6

State had failed to establish the pecuniary gain aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.

7

Id. at 115, 865 P.2d at 776. However, after excluding this factor from its independent

8

reweighing of aggravation and mitigation, the court nonetheless concluded that the mitigation

9

was not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency and upheld the death sentence. Id.

10

Following unsuccessful state post-conviction-relief proceedings, Petitioner sought

11

habeas corpus relief in federal court. Among his claims, Petitioner alleged that after striking

12

the pecuniary gain aggravating factor, the Arizona Supreme Court had failed to properly

13

reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as required by Clemons v. Mississippi,

14

494 U.S. 738, 748-49 (1990). United States District Court Judge Earl H. Carroll concluded

15

that this claim was procedurally barred from federal review. On appeal, however, the Ninth

16

Circuit found the claim properly exhausted and determined that the Arizona Supreme Court

17

had improperly refused to consider all of Petitioner’s proffered mitigation in its reweighing,

18

thereby failing to fulfill its constitutional obligations under Clemons and Eddings v.

19

Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115 (1982). Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir.

20

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 379 (2009) (“Styers II”). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s

21

mandate, the district court entered judgment granting the writ of habeas corpus unless the

22

State of Arizona, within 120 days of the judgment, “initiates proceedings either to correct the

23

constitutional error in Petitioner’s death sentence or to vacate the sentence and impose a

24

lesser sentence consistent with the law.” (Doc. 148 at 2.)

25

At the request of the State and over Petitioner’s objection, the Arizona Supreme Court

26
27
28

Reg. Sess.).
-2-

1

ordered briefing and argument and then conducted a new independent review of Petitioner’s

2

capital sentence, again finding that the proffered mitigation was not sufficient to warrant

3

leniency. See State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186, 254 P.3d 1132 (2011) (“Styers III”). The court

4

also addressed Petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding

5

before a jury under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), which requires jury findings as to

6

aggravating factors that render a defendant eligible for the death penalty. Petitioner had

7

argued that although Ring was found not to apply retroactively to convictions that were

8

already final when Ring was decided, see Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), his

9

case was no longer final once the federal court issued the conditional writ. The Arizona

10

Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that a second independent review did not “re-open”

11

direct review such that Ring had to be applied retroactively to Petitioner’s case. Styers III,

12

227 Ariz. at 188, 254 P.3d at 1134. The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for

13

certiorari, Styers v. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 540 (2011), and the instant motion followed.

14

DISCUSSION

15

Petitioner asserts that the Arizona Supreme Court neither corrected the constitutional

16

error in his sentence nor imposed a lesser sentence, the two conditions set forth in the order

17

granting conditional habeas relief. Therefore, according to Petitioner, this Court must grant

18

an unconditional writ releasing him from his death sentence. Petitioner’s motion rests on

19

three grounds: (1) the constitutional error could not be corrected without resentencing by a

20

jury; (2) the Arizona Supreme Court employed an unconstitutional process in its attempt to

21

cure the constitutional error; and (3) the Arizona Supreme Court failed to correct the

22

constitutional error because it did not properly consider his mitigation evidence during its

23

independent sentencing review.

24

Once a judgment order granting conditional habeas relief issues, a federal district court

25

retains authority to review compliance with that order. Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d

26

1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687, 692 (6th Cir. 2006)). A

27

State’s failure to comply with a conditional writ requires the petitioner’s release. Harvest

28

-3-

1

v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 750 (9th Cir. 2008). When a petitioner alleges noncompliance with

2

a conditional writ, “the district court must make a finding concerning the sufficiency of the

3

action that the state took pursuant to its mandate.” Phifer v. Warden, United States

4

Penitentiary, 53 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 1995). In making this determination, the district

5

court may consider whether the state’s actions ran afoul of the “letter or spirit” of the

6

conditional writ. Patterson v. Haskins, 470 F.3d 645, 668 (6th Cir. 2006).

7

Scope of Remedy

8

Petitioner argues that the conditional writ granted in this case “vacated” his death

9

sentence and therefore he was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding in state court. (Doc.

10

160 at 16.) In his view, the Arizona Supreme Court’s failure to remand his case for

11

resentencing constitutes a failure to comply with the order granting a conditional writ. In

12

making these arguments, Petitioner misapprehends the nature of the relief provided by the

13

district court’s order.

14

It is well established that federal district courts have broad discretion in conditioning

15

a judgment granting habeas relief. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987). Pursuant

16

to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, federal courts are authorized to dispose of habeas corpus matters “as

17

law and justice require.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts may

18

delay the release of a successful habeas petitioner in order to provide the State an opportunity

19

to correct the constitutional violation found by the court. Hilton, 481 U.S. at 775. So-called

20

“conditional release” orders require release from custody (or a given type of sentence) only

21

in the event a retrial, resentencing, or some other action sufficient to cure the violation does

22

not occur within a period of time specified in the order granting the writ. 2 R. Hertz & J.

23

Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 33.1, pp. 1899-1900 (6th ed.

24

2011).

25

“Conceptually, any habeas remedy ‘should put the defendant back in the position he

26

would have been in if the [constitutional] violation never occurred.’” Nunes v. Mueller, 350

27

F.3d 1045, 1056-57 (2003) (quoting United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1468 (9th Cir.

28

-4-

1

1994).); see also Johnson v. Uribe, 682 F.3d 1238, 1244 (9th Cir. 2012); Chioino v. Kernan,

2

581 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009). An adequate remedy “must ‘neutralize the taint’ of a

3

constitutional violation, while at the same time not grant a windfall to the defendant or

4

needlessly squander the considerable resources the State properly invested in the criminal

5

prosecution.” Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388-89 (2012) (quoting United States v.

6

Morrison, 409 U.S. 361, 365 (1981)). Accordingly, a habeas remedy should be tailored to

7

the injury suffered from the constitutional violation, after considering the unique facts and

8

circumstances of a particular case.

9

In this case, the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to grant a conditional writ on

10

the ground that the Arizona Supreme Court had failed to consider all of Petitioner’s proffered

11

mitigation evidence when it conducted its independent review of Petitioner’s death sentence.

12

Styers II, 547 F.3d at 1035. Specifically, the Circuit court found that the Arizona appellate

13

court had applied an improper “nexus test” in concluding that evidence of post-traumatic

14

stress disorder (“PTSD”) resulting from Petitioner’s combat in Vietnam did not qualify as

15

mitigating evidence in the absence of a connection between the PTSD and Petitioner’s

16

behavior at the time of the offense. Id. Consequently, the Arizona Supreme Court failed to

17

consider all relevant mitigating evidence when it reweighed the aggravating and mitigating

18

circumstances after striking the pecuniary gain aggravating factor. Id. In doing so, the Ninth

19

Circuit “neither express[ed] nor impl[ied] any opinion as to the appropriate sentence in this

20

case. This is a matter for the state courts, so long as the constitutional obligations under

21

Eddings and Clemons are honored.” Id. at 1036.

22

On remand, the district court did not vacate Petitioner’s sentence. Rather, the court

23

indicated that a writ of habeas corpus (releasing Petitioner from his sentence) would be

24

granted “unless the State of Arizona, within 120 days from the entry of this Judgment,

25

initiates proceedings either to correct the constitutional error in Petitioner’s death sentence

26

or to vacate the sentence and impose a lesser sentence consistent with the law.” (Doc. 148

27

at 1.) The court did not order that Petitioner be released from his death sentence or direct that

28

-5-

1

Petitioner receive a new sentencing hearing, neither of which would have been appropriate

2

remedies in the face of the constitutional error that occurred here.

3

This is not a case where relevant mitigating evidence was excluded from consideration

4

by the sentencer. See, e.g., Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 399 (1987) (finding

5

constitutional error where sentencing judge refused to consider nonstatutory mitigating

6

circumstances and directing grant of writ unless the petitioner was resentenced in a

7

constitutionally proper proceeding or his death sentence vacated). In such circumstances, a

8

new sentencing hearing may be necessary to fully correct the error. See, e.g., Paxton v.

9

Ward, 199 F.3d 1197, 1220 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding reweighing by state appellate court

10

insufficient remedy where jury was denied consideration of relevant mitigating evidence).

11

Here, the constitutional error occurred during the appellate process, not the sentencing

12

proceeding, and Petitioner was not precluded during sentencing from presenting evidence in

13

support of mitigation. Accordingly, a new sentencing hearing was unnecessary to correct the

14

appellate court error, and the Arizona Supreme Court’s refusal to remand the case for

15

resentencing by a jury does not represent a failure to comply with the district court’s order

16

conditionally granting the writ.

17

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cabana v. Bullock is instructive. There,

18

the Court determined that neither the jury nor the state appellate court had found the requisite

19

degree of culpability required by the Eighth Amendment and Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S.

20

782 (1982), for imposition of the death penalty. Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 383-90

21

(1986) (noting that Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of death penalty on one who did

22

not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place), abrogated on other

23

grounds by Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 503 n.7 (1987). In determining the appropriate

24

remedy for this error, the Court declined to order a new sentencing hearing. Rather, the

25

Court held that “the sentence currently in force may stand provided only that the requisite

26

findings are made in an adequate proceeding before some appropriate tribunal—be it an

27

appellate court, a trial judge, or a jury.” Id. at 392 (emphasis added).

28

-6-

1

If further review by an appellate court was sufficient to correct the error in Bullock, it

2

was sufficient here where the error itself stemmed from the Arizona Supreme Court’s

3

application of Clemons v. Mississippi, which permits appellate courts to cure constitutional

4

deficiencies arising from improper applications or limitations of aggravating or mitigating

5

circumstances. See Anderson v. Hopkins, 113 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Clemons

6

in upholding district court’s order conditionally granting writ as to capital sentence unless

7

state supreme court either reweighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, conducted

8

harmless error review, or remanded to trial court for resentencing); see also Chioino, 581

9

F.3d at 1186 (observing that “it is the state court’s responsibility to determine the procedure”

10

to correct constitutional error). Moreover, resentencing would not have put Petitioner “back

11

in the position he would have been in” if the Arizona Supreme Court had not committed the

12

Eddings error when on direct appeal it reweighed the sentencing factors pursuant to Clemons.

13

Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1057. Rather, such a remedy would have resulted in an inappropriate

14

“windfall.” Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1388.

15

Petitioner also argues that the Arizona Supreme Court inappropriately created a “new

16

doctrine,” which he characterizes as a “bizarre invention,” by independently reviewing his

17

case in response to the district court’s order granting the conditional writ. (Doc. 160 at 16-

18

17.) Petitioner asserts that the state court justified this review using a “unique interpretation

19

of the statute governing independent review, A.R.S. § 13-755.” (Id. at 24.) In Styers III, the

20

Arizona Supreme Court noted that, although independent review is normally conducted in

21

an appeal from a death sentence, “nothing in § 13-755 limits our review to direct appeals.”

22

227 Ariz. at 188 n.1, 254 P.3d at 1134 n.1. This Court is bound to follow the decisions of

23

a state supreme court on state law matters. See Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 916 (1997)

24

(“Neither this Court nor any other federal tribunal has any authority to place a construction

25

on a state statute different from the one rendered by the highest court of the State.”). In light

26

of the court’s pronouncement in Styers III that a new independent review was authorized

27

under state law, this Court concludes that such review constituted “an adequate proceeding

28

-7-

1

before [an] appropriate tribunal.”2 Bullock, 474 U.S. at 392.

2

In sum, neither the lack of a resentencing proceeding nor the Arizona Supreme Court’s

3

decision to undertake a new independent sentencing review constitutes noncompliance with

4

the district court’s order granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus in this case.

5

Independent Review

6

Petitioner also contends that the Arizona Supreme Court’s independent review failed

7

to correct the error upon which the conditional writ was granted. He asserts that the court

8

improperly applied “a causal nexus requirement to eviscerate relevant mitigation to the point

9

of non-consideration,” thus failing to conduct a review compliant with the Eighth

10

Amendment. (Doc. 160 at 11.) The Court disagrees.

11

In directing entry of a conditional writ in this case, the Ninth Circuit observed that the

12

appropriate sentence for Petitioner “is a matter for the state courts, so long as the

13

constitutional obligations under Eddings and Clemons are honored.” Styers II, 547 F.3d at

14

1036. “Under Clemons, an appellate court in a ‘weighing state,’ such as Arizona, can affirm

15

a death sentence based on an invalid aggravating factor only after conducting either a

16

harmless error review or re-weighing the mitigating evidence against the remaining valid

17

aggravating factors.” Id. at 1034. In conducting this review, the court must consider, and

18

may not refuse to consider, any constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. See Eddings,

19

455 U.S. at 115; Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978). Constitutionally relevant

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court notes that the type of appellate court error that occurred here is
uncommon and thus it is not surprising that the Arizona Supreme Court has had few
occasions to correct such an error as part of a conditional habeas grant. However, the state
court did undertake a new independent reweighing in at least one case, following a directive
from the United States Supreme Court—similar to that of the Ninth Circuit here—that the
State either correct the constitutional error in the petitioner’s death sentence or vacate the
sentence and impose a lesser sentence consistent with the law. See Richmond v. Lewis, 506
U.S. 40, 52 (1992) (finding Eighth Amendment violation where sentencing judge gave
weight to unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor and state appellate court failed to cure
error during independent review); State v. Richmond, 180 Ariz. 573, 886 P.2d 1329 (1994)
(reweighing sentencing factors following grant of conditional habeas writ by federal court).
-8-

1

mitigating evidence is “any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the

2

circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than

3

death.” Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604; see Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 5 (1986).

4

However, while the court may not refuse to consider relevant mitigation, “it is free to assess

5

how much weight to assign such evidence.” Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 943 (9th Cir.

6

1998); see Eddings, 455 U.S. at 114-15 (“The sentencer, and the [appellate court] on review,

7

may determine the weight to be given the relevant mitigating evidence.”).

8

In conducting its new independent review of Petitioner’s sentence, the Arizona Supreme

9

Court found as established that Petitioner suffered from PTSD at or near the time of the

10

offense. Styers III, 227 Ariz. at 189, 254 P.3d at 1136. The court then considered the weight

11

to assign this factor, noting:

12
13
14

Although we do not require establishment of a nexus between the mitigating
factors and the crime before we consider the mitigation evidence, we may consider
the failure to show such a connection as we assess “the quality and strength of the
mitigation evidence,” and may attribute less weight to the mitigating effect of a
disorder if the defendant fails to establish a relationship between the disorder and
the criminal conduct . . . .

15
Id. (quoting State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 405, 254 P.3d 833, 849 (2006)). After finding
16
no evidence that Petitioner’s PTSD affected his criminal conduct, which it described as
17
“planned and deliberate, not impulsive,” the court gave little weight to the disorder as a
18
mitigating factor. Id. at 190, 254 P.3d at 1136 (citing State v. Styers, 184 Ariz. 277, 294, 908
19
P.2d 1062, 1079 (1996)). The court ultimately determined that the proven mitigation was not
20
sufficient to warrant leniency in light of the aggravation and reaffirmed Petitioner’s sentence
21
of death.
22
Petitioner argues that the Arizona Supreme Court failed to grasp that his prior physical
23
and psychological trauma was “pervasive on that tragic day” and that relegating mitigation
24
to the category of “not causally connected” “is the equivalent of barring mitigation or
25
assigning it no weight.” (Doc. 160 at 11.) Petitioner’s arguments notwithstanding, federal
26
caselaw is clear that a causal nexus may be used “as a factor in determining the weight or
27
28

-9-

1

significance of mitigating evidence.” Lopez v. Ryan, 630 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir.), cert.

2

denied, 132 S. Ct. 577 (2011). Moreover, it is beyond the purview of this Court to review

3

a state court’s factual finding as to the existence of a causal connection; federal law requires

4

only that mitigation evidence be considered, not that it be found weighty. Eddings, 455 U.S.

5

at 114-15. On this record, it is clear the Arizona Supreme Court considered all of Petitioner’s

6

mitigating evidence in conducting its reweighing. Thus, the state court satisfied its

7

“constitutional obligations under Eddings and Clemons.” Styers II, 547 F.3d at 1036.

8

CONCLUSION

9

The conditional writ of habeas corpus entered in this case gave the State the opportunity

10

to cure the constitutional defect found by the Ninth Circuit. At the request of the State, the

11

Arizona Supreme Court undertook a new independent review of Petitioner’s capital sentence,

12

reweighing the proven aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This remedied the

13

constitutional infirmity found in Styers II and satisfied the condition precedent contained in

14

the conditional writ. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to an unconditional writ releasing

15

him from his capital sentence.

16

Based on the foregoing,

17

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Enter Judgment Granting Writ of Habeas

18
19

Corpus (Doc. 160) is DENIED.
DATED this 26th day of July, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 10 -