Jimmie Wayne Jeffers v. Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison

974 F.2d 1075 Jimmie Wayne JEFFERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison, Respondents-Appellees. No. 86-1840. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 24, 1991. Decided Aug. 31, 1992. Donald S. Klein and Frank P. Leto, Deputy Public Defenders, Pima County Public Defender, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant. Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Counsel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., attorney for respondents-appellees. On remand from the United States Supreme Court. Before: PREGERSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and WILSON, District Judge * PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Jeffers was convicted of murder in Arizona state court and sentenced to death. After the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, Jeffers petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied, 627 F.Supp. 1334 , and Jeffers appealed to this court. With regard to the issues raised by Jeffers's conviction, we affirmed the district court's decision to deny the writ. But we reversed the district court's decision to deny the writ with…

Jeffers was convicted of murder in Arizona state court and sentenced to death. After the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, Jeffers petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied, 627 F.Supp. 1334 , and Jeffers appealed to this court. With regard to the issues raised by Jeffers’s conviction, we affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the writ. But we reversed the district court’s decision to deny the writ with regard to the sentence of death. Jeffers v. Ricketts, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987). The Supreme Court then reversed our ruling on the sentence, Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990), and returned this case to us for resolution of the issues we did not consider earlier. Now, after considering these remaining issues regarding the constitutionality of the sentence of death, we again reverse the district court and remand for issuance of the writ.

I

The Arizona capital sentencing statute requires the state trial court to preside over an evidentiary hearing on the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors. The trial court is required to make findings on the…

dissenting:

I believe the majority has gone beyond the proper role of a federal court hearing a challenge to the constitutionality of a death sentence under the laws of Arizona, by casting a searching'and suspicious eye on not only the judge who sentenced petitioner to death, but also the Arizona Supreme Court which independently concluded death was an appropriate penalty. Because I believe a fair review of the record shows the courts of Arizona understood and applied the Arizona death, penalty statute in conformity with the United States Constitution by considering all mitigating evidence offered by petitioner, I cannot join in the majority opinion.

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution require the sentencing court to consider all relevant mitigating evidence proffered by a defendant in a death penalty case. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110 , 102 S.Ct. 869, 874 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). The Arizona death penalty statute satisfies the Constitution in this regard by directing the sentencing judge to consider as mitigating circumstances, in addition to five…