Opinion ID: 6536852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Legislature's Repeal of the Death Penalty Is a Compelling Reason to Revisit the Comparative Proportionality of Petitioners' Death Sentences

Text: {25} The State argues that we should refrain from revisiting the comparative proportionality of Petitioners' death sentences because we determined that the death sentences were not excessive or disproportionate in their direct appeals. Fry , 2006-NMSC-001 , ¶¶ 42-45, 138 N.M. 700 , 126 P.3d 516 ; Allen , 2000-NMSC-002 , ¶ 111, 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 . We exercise our discretion to reconsider the proportionality of Petitioners' death sentences in light of the extraordinary circumstances created by the death penalty repeal. {26} Because the essential purpose of habeas review is to reconsider and correct issues that were wrongly decided on direct appeal, courts rarely apply principles of finality in habeas corpus proceedings with the same force as they do in ordinary litigation. Clark v. Tansy , 1994-NMSC-098 , ¶¶ 12, 14, 118 N.M. 486 , 882 P.2d 527 . Historically the writ of habeas corpus has been used to protect individual rights from erroneous deprivation. Id. ¶ 12. This Court has the discretion to reconsider issues disposed of on direct appeal in cases (1) involving an intervening change in law, (2) involving an intervening change in fact, or (3) where the ends of justice would otherwise be served. Id. ¶ 14. Here, all three are satisfied. {27} The State argues that the repeal was not technically a change in law because it left the comparative proportionality requirement undisturbed for murders committed before July 1, 2009. 3 Id. ¶ 14. We disagree. The repeal represents a profound change in the legislative attitude toward the death penalty and a shift in the standards of decency. State v. Santiago , 318 Conn. 1 , 122 A.3d 1 , 62 (2015) (The prospective abolition of the death penalty ... provides strong support for the conclusion that capital punishment no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency.). {28} The repeal of the death penalty is also an intervening change in fact, presenting eminently relevant information that was not considered upon our initial review of Petitioners' death sentences. In determining the proper course of action, this Court is not limited to considering the instant record but rather may take judicial notice of legislative facts by resorting to whatever materials it may have at its disposal establishing or tending to establish those  facts. Kerr v. Parsons , 2016-NMSC-028 , ¶ 6, 378 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Lee v. Martinez , 2004-NMSC-027 , ¶ 13, 136 N.M. 166 , 96 P.3d 291 (Legislative facts are those which help the tribunal to determine the content of law and policy and to exercise its judgment or discretion in determining what course of action to take. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). While we have long known that the death penalty was imposed with great infrequency, we now know that only one person was executed in New Mexico under the 1979 capital sentencing scheme. See Wilson, supra , at 266. The repeal effectively sealed the universe of cases for proportionality review, enabling us to conduct a more meaningful comparison of Petitioners' death sentences to the sentences imposed in similar cases. [C]ourts should not impede postconviction litigation that will provide necessary fuller or fairer procedural opportunities to examine alleged constitutional defects when consideration of an issue on direct appeal is based upon facts which could not, or customarily would not, be developed at trial. Duncan v. Kerby , 1993-NMSC-011 , ¶ 6, 115 N.M. 344 , 851 P.2d 466 . {29} Fry and Allen are currently the only two inmates facing the death penalty under the 1979 capital sentencing scheme and, due to the repeal's profound shift in fact and law, they are likely to be the last two inmates to ever face the death penalty under that statutory framework. The interests of justice require us to ensure that every person facing death under the 1979 capital sentencing scheme is afforded its full statutory protections. Under that capital sentencing scheme, we have an unqualified mandate to assure that a death sentence shall not be imposed if disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Section 31-20A-4(B), (C)(4) (providing that the supreme court shall rule on the validity of the death sentence and that [t]he death penalty shall not be imposed if ... disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases); see NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-4(A) (1997) ( 'Shall' ... express[es] a duty, obligation, requirement or condition precedent.). This is a heightened, additional, and continuing responsibility, and it is a mandatory and important component of New Mexico's capital sentencing scheme. Until an execution is carried out, justice requires us to ensure that a death sentence is not disproportionate. {30} Our reconsideration of the proportionality of Petitioners' death sentences is consistent with the highest level of scrutiny which death penalty cases demand. Gregg , 428 U.S. at 187, 96 S.Ct. 2909 (When a defendant's life is as stake, the Court has been particularly sensitive to insure that every safeguard is observed.); State v. Chadwick-McNally , 2018-NMSC-018 , ¶ 2, 414 P.3d 326 (The extraordinary penalty of death demands heightened scrutiny of its imposition. (quoting State v. Frank Martinez , 2002-NMSC-008 , ¶ 8, 132 N.M. 32 , 43 P.3d 1042 )); Clark v. Tansy , 1994-NMSC-098 , ¶ 9, 118 N.M. 486 , 882 P.2d 527 ([T]his Court believes that death indeed is different from other sanctions and thus requires greater scrutiny.); Woo Dak San v. State , 1931-NMSC-056 , ¶ 2, 36 N.M. 53 , 7 P.2d 940 ([T]he alien and friendless condition of the condemned man, the devoted services of his counsel, serving by appointment, the importance of the case and of the questions involved ... call for the most deliberate judgment and considerate procedure at all stages.). This is due to the gravity and irrevocability of the death sentence as well as the extraordinary risk of an erroneous execution. Frank Martinez , 2002-NMSC-008 , ¶¶ 8, 10, 132 N.M. 32 , 43 P.3d 1042 (Death, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Because of the grave injustice presented by an erroneous execution, id. ¶ 10, additional safeguards are required to prevent the arbitrary imposition of a death sentence. Gregg , 428 U.S. at 187, 96 S.Ct. 2909 . {31} While there is a legitimate interest in the finality of criminal judgments, the repeal of the death penalty presents a profound change in the legal and factual framework surrounding Petitioners' death sentences such that the interests of justice require that we ensure that those sentences are not disproportionate to the penalty imposed  in similar cases. We therefore exercise our discretion to reconsider the comparative proportionality of Petitioners' death sentences.