Document: Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHAWN PATRICK LYNCH v. ARIZONA ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO No. 15–8366. Decided May 31, 2016 PER CURIAM. Under Simmons South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), and its progeny, “where a capital defendant’s future dan- gerousness is at issue, the only sentencing alternative to death available jury life imprisonment without possibility of parole,” Due Process Clause “entitles defendant ‘to inform [his] parole ineligibility, either by instruction or in arguments counsel.’ ” Shafer 532 36, 39 (2001) (quoting Ramdass Angelone, 530 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion)). In decision below, Arizona Supreme Court found that State had put petitioner Shawn Patrick Lynch’s dangerousness issue during his proceeding acknowledged sentence was impris- onment parole. 238 Ariz. 84, 103, 357 P.3d 119, 138 (2015). But court nonetheless concluded Lynch no right ineligi- bility. Ibid. The judgment reversed. A convicted first-degree murder, kidnap- ping, armed robbery, burglary for 2001 killing James Panzarella. sought penalty. Before penalty phase trial began, moved prevent counsel from informing App. K Pet. Cert. granted motion. first failed reach unan- imous verdict. second convened sentenced 2 death. On appeal, vacated because instructions im- properly described law. did not address argument violated Simmons. remand, third affirmed, this time consid- ering rejecting claim. agreed that, phase, “[t]he suggested . could be dangerous.” Ariz., P. 3d, 138. also recognized ineligible: law, “parole individuals who committed felony before January 1, 1994,” crimes 2001. (citing Rev. Stat. Ann. §41– 1604.09(I)). Nevertheless, while “[a]n currently would correct,” held “the failure give instruc- tion error.” P.3d, That conclusion conflicts with Court’s precedents. Simmons, as here, ineligible under state U.S., 156 opin- ion). During argued jurors should consider dangerous- ness when determining proper punishment. Id., 157. refused permit defense tell 157, 160. re- versed, reasoning due process entitled rebut prosecution’s he posed danger ineligible. 161–162; id., 178 (O’Connor, J., con- curring judgment). opinions reiterated holding Ramdass, Shafer, Kelly 534 246 (2002). thought Arizona’s sentenc- 3 ing law sufficiently different others considered apply. It relied on fact have received made him eligible “re- lease” after 25 years. 103–104, 138–139; §13–751(A). kind release which been eligible—as does contest—is executive clemency. See 22; 138– 139. And expressly rejected clemency diminishes defend- ant’s ineligibility. There, Carolina need allowed present information “because exigencies,” including “commutation [and] clemency,” one day “allow [him] released into society.” 166 opinion). disagreed: “To extent opposes even simple parole-ineligibility hypothet- ical developments, has little force.” Ibid.; 177 (opinion O’Connor, J.) (explaining “to bring ineligibility jury’s attention” respond “truthful regarding availability commutation, pardon, like”). responds “ ‘applies instances where, legal matter, there parole.’ Brief Opposition 11 169 Notwithstanding prevents all felons com- mitted their offenses 1993 obtaining parole, 138, reasons “nothing legislature creating system [Lynch] possi- bility years.” 12. 4 This precedents foreclose argument. said potential “legislative reform” justify refusing instruction. If it were otherwise, always argue legis- lature might pass rendering eligible. Accordingly, later explained, dispositive clusively established trial.” supra, 171 case, confirmed unavailable progeny establish fact. petition writ certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis are granted. reversed, case remanded further proceedings incon- sistent opinion. so ordered. THOMAS, dissenting JUSTICE whom ALITO joins, dissenting. Petitioner co-conspirator, Michael Sehwani, met victim, Panzarella, Scottsdale bar March 24, three went back Panzarella’s house early next morning. Around 5 a.m., Sehwani called an escort service. her bodyguard arrived soon after. paid $300 two checks checkbook spending hour bedroom. then left credit debit cards embarked spree. afternoon 25, someone body bound metal chair kitchen. His throat slit. Blood surrounded tile floor. disarray. Police discovered hunting knife missing kitchen’s knifeblock. some receipts Sehwani’s motel days killing. They spent Panzarel- la’s buying cigarettes, matches, gas, clothing, Everlast shoes, renting movies motels where they afternoon, making cash withdrawals. When police pair, wore shoes stained blood. sweater, blood, seat truck, car keys. ing, burglary, ultimately sen- tenced death.* today, decides good prohibited parties telling abol- ished Ante, 1; see 1604.09(I) (1999). holds limitation (1994). “[w]here puts entitles tencing jury—by instruction—that ineligible.” concurring Today’s summary reversal perpetuates error 246, 262 (2002) (THOMAS, dissenting); Caro- lina, 58 dissenting). As “sheer depravity [the defendant’s] crimes, rather than any specific fear future, induced conclude justice.” 181 (Scalia, example, beat raped elderly women—one them own grandmother— brutally fourth. ibid. notion impose “would altered current concerning (which course amended) farfetched,” say least. 184. —————— * pleaded guilty murder theft natural plus year. 225 27, 33, n. 4, 234 595, 601, (2010). Worse, today’s imposes magic-words require- ment. Unlike “no all” about meaning except term construed according ‘[plain] ordinary meaning,’ 160, ion), here nature sentences impose: “If your verdict Defendant death, will life, until least calendar years prison served, ‘natural life,’ means Defend- ant never prison.” S 18. parallels statute governing proceedings. prescribed defendants receive “natural life” sentence: shall basis completion service twenty-five years,” but “not remainder life.” §13–703(A) (2001). Even though court’s correct recitation requires more. laments (at now) form 3. So demands specify release” include process, holds, if seek 3–4. Nonsense. compel such “micromanage[ment of] proceed- ings.” decision—issued full briefing ar- gument based fractured produce majority opinion—is remarkably aggressive use our power review States’ highest courts. accurately told with- out release, suffice. I respectfully dissent.

Category: 0