Opinion ID: 163820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Abeyance.

Text: 68 In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the Supreme Court held that a capital defendant is entitled to have a jury determine the presence or absence of aggravating factors in death penalty cases. Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428 ([W]e overrule [a previous case] to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.). The aggravating factors in Workman's case, though, were decided by the jury. 69 Nevertheless, Workman would have us read Ring for a different proposition than its central holding. He would expand Ring 's narrow holding from barring a sentencing judge, sitting alone, from finding aggravating circumstances to establishing that only juries, not judges ever, could find culpability necessary for the imposition of the death penalty under Enmund or Tison. 70 However, we do not in this case need to address this argument because, as noted above, the jury did determine that Workman actually killed Amanda Holman and thus the Enmund/Tison test is satisfied. Furthermore, Ring may not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989, 994 (10th Cir.2002). 71 Accordingly, the Ring case does not aid Workman's argument, and we DENY his motion for abeyance. 72