Case Title: State v. Arnett

Citation: 125 Ariz. 201, 608 P.2d 778

Docket Number: 3684-2

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1980-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
125 Ariz. 201 (1980) 608 P.2d 778 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Alan ARNETT, Appellant. No. 3684-2. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 12, 1980. John A. LaSota, Jr., Former Atty. Gen., Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Crane McClennen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Bruno & Weisberg by William L. Carroll, Kingman, and Richard A. Garcia, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Justice. This is an appeal by James Alan Arnett from a resentence of death for the crime of first degree murder. A.R.S. § 13-454(E).[1] Defendant raises six questions on appeal: The facts necessary for the determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Defendant James Alan Arnett was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury on 22 July 1976. An aggravation-mitigation hearing was held on 24 August 1976, and the court found that the defendant (1) had been previously convicted of an offense for which, under Arizona law, a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable and (2) had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence on another person thus establishing the aggravating circumstances set forth in A.R.S. § 13-454(E)(1) and (2). No mitigating circumstances were found and the defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant's conviction was affirmed by this court on 14 April 1978. See State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38, 579 P.2d 542 (1978) for a statement of the facts of the crime. After our decision in State v. Arnett, supra, the United States Supreme Court, in two cases, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978) and Bell v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 637, 98 S. Ct. 2977, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1978), struck down, as unconstitutional, restrictions on the right of a defendant in a death penalty case to show mitigating circumstances. Following Lockett and Bell, supra, this court, in the case of State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), motion for rehearing denied 120 Ariz. 451, 586 P.2d 1263 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 924, 99 S. Ct. 1254, 59 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1979), severed that portion of the sentencing procedure which was constitutionally infirm and directed that in the future courts in the State of Arizona must consider any mitigating factor presented by the defendant before the imposition of the death penalty. Defendant Arnett was resentenced to death on 17 November 1978 pursuant to State v. Watson, supra, and appeals. FIRST FOUR QUESTIONS Defendant candidly admits in his brief that he raised questions one through four for reconsideration by this court and for appeal to a higher court. As to questions one through four, we believe that our case of State v. Watson, supra, is dispositive of all four questions, and we see no compelling reason to reconsider them at this time. FELONY MURDER RULE As to question number five, defendant contends that there is language in the United States Supreme Court cases of Lockett v. Ohio, supra, and Bell v. Ohio, supra, which indicates that the death penalty may not be imposed in a felony murder situation. In the instant case, a felony murder instruction was given. In Lockett, supra, Justice Blackmun, in his concurring opinion, stated: Justice Marshall also criticized the application of the felony murder rule in Ohio stating: Both justices were concerned with the imposition of the death penalty upon a person who did not actually commit the murder or actually intend that such an event occur, but in which the death penalty was imposed based upon vicarious liability. This was not the case here where defendant shot his victim five times without the aid of an accomplice. Even if the language by the two justices were the holding of the United States Supreme Court, we do not feel that it would apply under the circumstances herein. We find no error. See State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied 433 U.S. 915, 97 S. Ct. 2988, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1101 (1977). See also State v. Bishop, 118 Ariz. 263, 576 P.2d 122, vacated on other grounds, 439 U.S. 810, 99 S. Ct. 69, 58 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1978); State v. Blazak, 114 Ariz. 199, 560 P.2d 54 (1977); State v. Jordan, 114 Ariz. 452, 561 P.2d 1224, vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 911, 98 S. Ct. 3138, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1157 (1976). ABUSE OF DISCRETION The defendant contends that the lower court abused its discretion in resentencing the defendant to death when there were mitigating factors compelling life imprisonment as the appropriate sentence. We first note that the sentence was based upon the hearing at the previous sentencing and that the defendant raised no objection to this procedure. Since the defendant did not raise the issue at trial, we need not consider here the procedure of relying on the previous hearing in mitigation and aggravation when the defendant is resentenced. We do not believe, however, that this is the better practice. When defendant is to be resentenced, and particularly when the death sentence is possible, it would seem that the evidence and testimony should be as fresh as possible. Relying on a hearing conducted months before the imposition of the death penalty is not recommended. We have reviewed the hearing upon sentencing and it is apparent that the judge took under consideration every potential mitigating circumstance. At the sentencing the court stated: It is apparent that the court considered all matters presented in mitigation and did not find them sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Upon an independent review of the record, Richmond, supra, we agree with the sentence imposed. Sentence affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HOLOHAN, V.C.J., and HAYS and GORDON, JJ., concurring. [1] The Arizona Criminal Code citations contained in this opinion refer to the statutes as they existed prior to the extensive criminal code revision effective 1 October 1978.