| State v. Clabourne (Clabourne II), 194 Ariz. 379, 983 P.2d 748 (1999) PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was
convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and three counts of
sexual assault. He was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. On appeal, the
sentence was affirmed. State v. Clabourne (Clabourne I), 142 Ariz. 335, 690 P.2d
54 (1984). The federal district court found ineffective assistance of counsel during
sentencing and remanded the case for resentencing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that
decision. Clabourne v. Lewis, 64 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). The defendant was
resentenced to death on the murder conviction and this is his automatic, direct appeal to
the Arizona Supreme Court from that resentencing.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld
The defendant did not contest the trial judge's (F)(6) finding. The
(F)(6)
aggravating circumstance was found by the trial court at the first sentencing hearing, and
that decision was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in Clabourne I. The victim
was picked up by the defendant and codefendant, raped and forced to undress and serve her
assailants drinks over a six hour period of time, begged this defendant to protect her and
was ultimately strangled.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following mitigating circumstances
existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency:
Age
Mental Impairment - [passive personality/impulsive/easily manipulated]
The Court found that the defendant failed to prove the
following mitigating circumstances existed in this case:
(G)(1) -Significant Impairment - [mental]
(G)(2) -Duress
Impairment from Alcohol or Drugs - [intoxication at time of offense]
Difficult Childhood/Family History
Sentencing Disparity
The Court found that the following were not mitigating:
Economic cost of death penalty
Length of time on death row
Codefendant was the mastermind of the killing
JUDGMENT: Death sentence affirmed.
State v. Martinez,
196 Ariz. 451, 999 P.2d 795 (2000)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree
murder and was sentenced to death. This is his automatic, direct appeal to
the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(2) (Prior Serious Offense) - UPHELD
The defendant conceded that his
aggravated assault conviction under A.R.S. §§13-1203(A)(2) and
1204(A)(2) qualified as a serious offense for the purpose of the (F)(2)
aggravating circumstance. However, he contested the trial court’s
finding that his conviction for two counts of Dangerous or Deadly
Assault by a Prisoner under A.R.S. §§13-1203 and 1206 were serious
offenses because that crime was not among those listed in the statute.
He also argued that because one can commit that offense recklessly, it
should not qualify as a serious offense. The Court agreed with the trial
court that the list of offenses in A.R.S. §13-751(I) is not specific to
statute number, and encompasses aggravated assault by prisoners. The
second argument regarding reckless assault erroneously assumes that the
old (F)(2) concepts carried over to the new (F)(2). All of these
convictions satisfy the current version of the (F)(2) aggravating
circumstance.
(F)(10) (Victim was On Duty Peace Officer)
- UPHELD
The victim, Officer Martin, was an on
duty peace officer killed in the course of performing his official
duties. He was in uniform and was in a marked police car when he pulled
the defendant over. The defendant knew, or should have known, that he
was a peace officer. The defendant conceded the existence of this
aggravating circumstance at sentencing, and did not contest it on
appeal.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that the following
mitigating circumstances existed, but were not sufficiently substantial to
call for leniency:
Age [19 years old at time of the
murder]
The Court found that the
defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence
of the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant
Impairment [mental]
Difficult Childhood/Family History [no nexus to the murder]
JUDGMENT:
Convictions and sentences affirmed.
Back to Top |