Document: 500 U.S. 110 111 S.Ct. 1723 114 L.Ed.2d 173 Bryan Stuart LANKFORD, Petitionerv.IDAHO. No. 88-7247. Argued Feb. 19, 1991. Decided May 20, Syllabus At petitioner Lankford's arraignment on two counts of first-degree murder, the Idaho trial judge advised him that maximum punishment under state law he could receive if convicted either charge was life imprisonment or death. A jury found guilty both counts, and, prior to his sentencing hearing, court entered an order requiring State provide notice whether it would seek death penalty. The filed a negative response, and there no discussion penalty as possible sentence at where defense counsel prosecutor argued merits concurrent consecutive, fixed indeterminate, terms. hearing's conclusion, however, indicated considered testimony unworthy belief, stated crimes' seriousness warranted more severe than recommended by State, mentioned possibility option. Subsequently, sentenced Lankford based, inter alia, five specific aggravating circumstances. In affirming, Supreme Court rejected claim violated Constitution failing give its intention consider imposing despite State's not seeking concluded express advice given arraignment, together with terms Code, were sufficient might be imposed. Held: process in this case Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment because time did have adequate There is nothing record after response presentencing before judge's remarks end hearing indicate contemplated alert parties real issue they should been debating choice between Moreover, comparable pretrial limiting issues tried, such reasonable for assume reason present argument evidence directed appropriate permissible. If had fair contemplating sentence, presumably she advanced arguments addressing circumstances identified reasons disbelieving Lankford; make these other entirely inappropriate about length incarceration. Thus, unrealistic provided statute survived order. silence following practical effect concealing from principal decided thereby created impermissible risk adversary may malfunctioned case. Cf. Gardner v. Florida, 430 349, 360, 97 1197, 1206, 51 393. Pp. 119-128. 116 279, 775 P.2d 593, reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE SOUTER, Joan Marie Fisher, Genessee, Idaho, petitioner. Larry EchoHawk, Boise, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide followed capital satisfied requirements Amendment.1 More narrowly, question whether, petitioner's 2 unique circumstance gives rise concern adequacy fact that, pursuant order, formally recommend To place proper perspective, necessary relate procedural history 3 * On June 21, 1983, Robert Cheryl Bravence killed their campsite near Santiam Creek, Idaho. December 1, information charging crime murder. first count alleged beaten second same way. Identical charges also against older brother, Mark. "the you are death." App. 14. 4 After appointed into plea negotiations prosecutor. During negotiations, agreed take lie-detector tests. Although results tests satisfactory, convinced brother Mark primarily responsible crimes actual killer victims. Id., 193. indeterminate 10-year minimum exchange plea, subject commitment impose sentence. February 1984, refused commitment. March, went trial. proved steal victims' Volkswagen van. Petitioner walked Bravences' armed shotgun engaged them conversation. When left nearby creek, campsite, ordered kneel down, struck head nightstick. returned, gave her manner. See Lankford, 113 688, 691, 747 710, 713 (1987). 5 testified support theory only accessory fact.2 instructed, "was present, aided abetted commission robbery" conviction 16.3 instruct intent kill required.4 counts. 6 prosecutor's request, postponed until separate concluded. set 28, later reset October 1984. interim, September 6, notify ask penalty, so, file statement intended rely.5 week later, response: 7 "COMES NOW, Dennis L. Albers, relation Court's Order makes response. 8 "In above named defendant, through Prosecuting Attorney will recommending degree murder defendant earlier convicted." 26 (emphasis original). 9 month flurry activity. pro se request new lawyer, denied lawyer's motion based incompetence counsel, continuance typewritten copy transcript.6 none proceedings any mention sentence.7 10 12, 1984,8 offered evidence. He relied record, explained why penalty,9 ultimately "somewhere ten 20 years." 104. put number witnesses who nonviolent person, but domination Mark, violent dangerous propensities. 95-97. mitigation, stressed facts, well independent killer. She urged concurrent, sentences, eligible parole years, less already served. consecutive sentences amounted 20-year term, fixed-life term 40-year minimum. made reference 11 conclusion rather lengthy belief recommended. 114-118. beginning statement, described options available court, including "or period greater years serve i.e., ten. For example, 40 sentence."10 114. saying announce decision Monday. 12 Monday, spent entire day conducting Mark's 9:38 p.m., reconvened hearing. preliminary colloquy, read written findings These findings, some repeated almost verbatim death, repeatedly reflected brothers equally culpable.11 13 sought postconviction relief variety grounds, spite 168. held Code intend "no bearing imposed." 200. Petitioner's therefore denied. 201. 14 consolidated appeal, affirmed denial relief. issue, statute, sufficient. 697, P.2d, 719. 15 One dissented affirmance 705, 727. Relying absence contention fatal blows, concerning equivocal, invalid our decisions Enmund Florida12 Tison Arizona,13 cases majority proportionality review.14 16 This certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded further consideration light Satterwhite Texas, 486 249, 108 1792, 100 284 (1988); 1051, 2815, 917 (1988). remand, vote 2, reinstated judgment. 593 (1989). again 498 ----, 292, 112 247 (1990), raised court's thereto. II 17 Before discussing narrow legal special useful one side certain propositions dispute As matter substantive law, power authorized limited recommendation. does argue formal waiver authority procedure power. Conversely, plus received notice. plainly correct similar commenced. 18 factual matter, undisputed character proceeding indication fixed, run concurrently consecutively, what appropriate, proceeded exactly way did. Indeed, apparent assumed stake. remark while arguing terms, silent person courtroom knew 19 advise specify mitigating rely, tried. purpose orders eliminate need address matters dispute, save valuable judges lawyers. responded affirmative rely three circumstances, reasonably adduced those therefore, preparation accordingly. Similarly, case, surely Orders designed limit acted peril when complied orders' limitations. It is, course, true expressly limits counsel's preparation. question, can said critical actually debating. Our answer must reflect importance we attach concept bedrock constitutionally procedure. Frankfurter eloquently point Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 71 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951): 21 "Representing profound attitude fairness man man, particularly individual government, 'due process' compounded history, reason, past course decisions, stout confidence strength democratic faith profess. mechanical instrument. yardstick. process. delicate adjustment inescapably involving exercise judgment whom entrusted unfolding process." 162-163, S.Ct., 643-644 (concurring opinion). 22 "The heart democracy implies respect elementary rights men, however suspect unworthy; government practice fairness; rarely obtained secret, one-sided determination facts decisive rights." 170, 647-648 (footnote omitted). 23 "Man being cannot safely trusted complete immunity outward responsibility depriving others rights. least underlying Bill Rights. That satisfies one's private conscience attest reliability. validity moral largely depend mode reached. Secrecy congenial truth-seeking self-righteousness too slender assurance rightness. No better instrument has devised arriving truth jeopardy serious loss opportunity meet it. Nor generating feeling, so important popular justice done." 171-172, 648-649 24 notified circumstances,15 addressed circumstances; Three examples suffice illustrate point. 25 known still pertained voiced troubled level participation met standard 458 782, 102 3368, 73 1140 (1982), Arizona, 481 137, 107 1676, 127 (1987), several cases.16 majority'sopinion having mischaracterized mind. 706, 728 over combined Justice's reliance cases, demonstrates failed influenced deliberations. was, making issue. basis "murders Bravences especially heinous, atrocious cruel, manifested exceptional depravity." 156-157. Even killer, arguable insufficient finding.17 finding even questionable. point, knowing considering finding, discuss future proceedings. 27 view appears rest disbelief testimony18 consequent just culpable omission takes significance. motion, represented polygraph examinations demonstrated truthful "his lack in, knowledge of, killings." 170. Such inadmissible ordinary appropriately, argues, teaching Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978),19 admissible proceeding. Whether prevail point; rather, inadequate frustrated persuaded different made. 28 very least, differ appropriateness reasoning motivated 393 (1977), applicable. relying partly Eighth Amendment's prohibition cruel unusual punishment, selecting people permits secret unacceptable. plurality like concurring judgment,20 emphasized context. "death kind imposed country." 357, 1204.21 explained: "From severity finality. From society, action sovereign taking citizens differs dramatically legitimate action. vital community be, appear caprice emotion." 357-358, 1204. 29 information, Notice resolved fundamental characteristic procedure.22 30 Without notice, benefit wrote Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984): 31 "A involved . sufficiently adversarial format existence standards role trial—to ensure testing works produce result governing decision." 686-687, 2064. 32 Earlier, Gardner, plays system justice: 33 "Our debate adversaries often essential function trials requires us recognize giving comment influence cases." U.S., 1206.23 34 given, permitted properly, increased chance error, see, e.g., United States Cardenas, F.2d 683, 688-689 (CA2 1990), incorrect result. See, Herring New York, 422 853, 862, 2550, 2555, 45 (1975) ("The premise criminal partisan advocacy sides best promote ultimate objective innocent go free"). imposition 35 reversed, inconsistent opinion. 36 ordered. 37 Chief WHITE, SOUTER join, dissenting. 38 holds due I disagree. 39 § 18-4004 (1987) clearly states "every shall punished life." presiding judge, reading aloud code provisions describing charges, told Lankford: "[T]he Do understand ?" Record 15. Ibid. unquestionable constitutional destroyed intentions regard perhaps believe exceed But not. 41 places full determining upon judge. directs "[w]here finds statutory unless presented outweigh gravity circumstance." 19-2515(c) added). dependent presentation prosecution. Under "[e]vidence admitted hearing." 19-2515(d). Anyone familiar recognized immediately necessarily find circumstance, jury's verdict established "[a]t committed another murder," 19-2515(g)(2).1 Thus bound see 19-2515(e), weigh all former outweighed latter. since found, event required "detail writing reasons" lesser provision suggests duties placed 19-2515 dissolve lower 42 Not clear face, confirms Rossi, 105 681, 672 249 (App.1983), claimed abuse discretion twice long Appeals stated: 43 prejudicial error resulted refusal follow [sentencing] recommendation jury. hold state. state's purely advisory." 682, 250 44 Rossi rule different. Osborn, 405, 631 187 (1981), informed "[w]hether urge immaterial appellant possible." 413, 195. nevertheless remain order," says, ". tried." Ante, 120. say simply conclusion. Assuredly, clarity explicitly sentencing, recommendation, "a tried"? preclusive typically says preclusive. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 16(e). provision, here, expect itself effect, any. intentions. seems me absolute preclusion inferable prosecutor, consequence likely imposed, pressing unanswered. neither nor inference inference, precluded thinking that. 46 though legally entry (contrary law) bound, sort promissory estoppel. support. own initiative, think "Why else demand know position advance accept it?" fact, asked clear. 47 "MR. LONGETEIG: wonder fix punishment. materially, depending does, alter matter. 48 49 "THE COURT: don't notify. I'm aware either. 50 court. Oh, well, Mr. Albers apparently doesn't objections your request. He's think, soon knows sure wants do, he'll tell you. 52 That's satisfactory. 53 ALBERS: And certainly plenty sentencing." 55. 54 wanted automatically it, contrary regardless Immediately colloquy quoted above, continues follows: 55 obviously needs inquiry exist intends pursue penalty." 56. 56 "inquiry" 19-2515(d) provides "[i]n shall, conviction, presentence investigation thereafter convene relevant aggravation mitigation offense. ." (Emphasis Pursuant section investigation—a step (or specifically contemplated) except cases. shows remained qualifying listed, 19-2515(g).2 sum, "misled" otherwise. Since today's creates vast uncertainty law. defendants longer unreasonable expectations henceforth criteria due, lawfulness finality assured. today always available, success factors identify series undertake impossible task explaining how much ignorance unreasonableness expectation, much. 58 believes, up detrimentally declaration, believe, albeit unreasonably, foreclosed option sentencing. far clear, do carried burden establishing 59 reality clear—from statutes, explicit death-sentence held—that difficult thought Counsel permissible spoke without parole. 329. conceivable, suppose, possessed death; baseless contained peculiar asymmetry remote. 60 remains, genuinely (though unreasonably) believed, so. hearing—concluding announcement advisement—stated included "[f]or So great possibilities Court." 330 believed (at matter) out expected shocked objection None made—though aggressive enough objecting portion concluding pages transcript, interrupted "Counsel, here you." 332. 61 supporting detrimental (albeit unreasonable) terribly persuasive evidence, apply fortiori event, consistent (1) ruled out, overwhelmingly unlikely possibility, (2) tactical create impression, thinkable, (3) sheer negligence. last, ineffective assistance petition habeas corpus. sustaining here. 62 63 Because case—and indeed unreasonably so—we cause reverse doing seemingly adopt topsy-turvy principle presumed misunderstanding misinterpretation respectfully dissent. "No deprive law." Const., Amdt. 14, 1. "Lankford's fact. behalf dominated person. merely knock Bravences, pointed entering camp. murders hysterical van hid bodies woods." 692, 714 testified, part: "hit [Mr. Bravence] thing foot long, little club time. hit times back neck actually. head. Kind across, know, across (indicating). Next lady came up. Mrs. river saw husband laying there, get ground. apparently, looked me, place." Tr. 705-707. "Based prove act caused victims, beyond doubt robbery alleged, encouraged crime." 16. "If human persons perpetration robbery, directly actively commit constituting unlawful perpetrator aid abet commission, degree, killing intentional unintentional. "Thus, acting perpetrating them, furtherance common kills being, Murder First Degree." 17. 833-834; 239-242. provided: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: "(1) Sentencing 1984 a.m.; "(2) 24, Defendant herein. notification manner pleading; "(3) herein 1984: "(a) listing enumerated 19-2515(f) justify penalty; "(b) concise "Dated 6th September, 1984." 24-25. May, reentered original postponed. tapes, consulting "all [she] need[ed] adequately prepare 60. dissent relies April 5, recommend, post, 132, noted 13, imparted counsel. Oral Arg. 25-27. never during proceed transcript id., 43. 132-133, too, confirmed ordering noncapital done alone. "Those things, taken together, my view, occurring part degree. Felony Rule, difficulty proof stand, then, participation. tend generally family members, time: traditionally pretty good he's around Those reasons, bottom line, required, document." 101-102; 191. continued: "So suggested requested sentences. letting analyze mean served considerable amount County Jail. suggestion concurrently, essence, spend, day, penitentiary each whose names yet spoken today." 114-115. example: "This many blows Lankford. acts force violence proximately deaths Bravence. show prevented and/or Bravence." 159. 801, 3378, (1982) ("For purposes [defendant's] culpability tailored personal guilt"). 158, 1688, ("[M]ajor felony committed, reckless indifference life, satisfy requirement"). Windsor, 410, 716 1182 (1985); Scroggins, 380, 1152 Beam, 109 616, 710 526 Fetterly, 766, 1202 (1985). were: depravity. "(c) By surrounding exhibited utter disregard life. "(d) defined Section 18-4003(d) accompanied "(e) conduct hand propensity probably constitute continuing threat society." McKinney, 180, 186, 687 570, 576 (1984) difference degrees justifies differences sentences"); Small, 504, 506, 690 1336, 1338 (co-defendants "had backgrounds played parts crime. disparity justified"). sensibility fairly characterize every 'outrageously wantonly vile, horrible inhuman.' " Godfrey Georgia, 446 420, 428-429, 1759, 1765, 64 398 (1980). consciousness materially 'depraved' His victims instantaneously." 433 toward "[H]e liar,and liar. deceitful individual." 116. "[W]e conclude Amendments require sentencer, rarest considering, factor, aspect defendant's offense proffers 604, 2964-2965 (footnotes "There perfect deciding governmental used prevents sentencer weight aspects proffered call unacceptable incompatible commands Amendments." 605, 2965. plain holding applied Woodson North Carolina, [428 280, 96 2978, 944 (1976),] 'involves procedure' employed Here selected report disclosed respond. 'character offender,' 304 [96 2991], fails 'need reliability punishment' Woodson, supra, 305 2992]. stems solely ban punishments rested, limited, 363-364, 1208-1209. limitation applicable today. qualitatively imprisonment, long. Death, finality, 100-year prison year two. qualitative difference, corresponding case." 428 305, 2991, (1976) (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.) Baldwin Hale, Wall. 223, 233, 531 (1864) ("Common condemned property defense"); re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 92 682 (1948) (due "reasonable him, heard examine offer testimony, counsel"). contexts, enable turn. Mullane Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 306, 314, 70 652, 657, 94 865 (1950) (notice "reasonably calculated, apprise interested pendency afford objections"); Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 549-550, 85 1187, 1190-1191, (1965) (failure adoption deprived law); Goss Lopez, 419 565, 579, 729, 738, 725 ("students facing suspension afforded hearing"); Cleveland Bd. Educ. Loudermill, 470 532, 546, 1487, 1495, 84 494 (1985) tenured public employee entitled oral explanation employer's story"). context, threatened severe, pronounced. Polk Dodson, 454 312, 318, 445, 450, 509 (1981) assumes interest fairness"). Evidence camping couple provocation resistance, skulls brutally smashed kneeling submission, driven dead mortally injured—into remote area hidden branches debris undiscovered months later. 691-692, anticipated additional 19-2515(g)(5) (aggravating "especially manifesting depravity"); 19-2515(g)(6) life"). majority, ante, 115 n. 7, notes response." fail relevant. procedures "whether notes, discussion. However, (Mr. Longeteig) imputed (Ms. Fisher). Ms. Fisher's duty inform herself Longeteig. difficult, Longeteig "beck call," 25, assist preparing Fisher labelled violation attributable State.

Category: 0