Pavatt v. Royal
894 F.3d 1115
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant James Pavatt was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy for the 2001 killing of Rob Andrew; jury recommended death after finding the HAC (heinous, atrocious, or cruel) and remuneration aggravators.
- Evidence included relationship and life‑insurance motive, brake‑line sabotage, forged documents, shotgun wounds to the victim, a .22 wound to Brenda Andrew, spent 16‑gauge and .22 shells linking sites, Brenda's 911 calls, and circumstantial flight to Mexico.
- Oklahoma trial court used a pre‑DeRosa HAC instruction that referred to torture or serious physical abuse but did not expressly require a jury finding of "conscious physical suffering" beyond a reasonable doubt.
- OCCA affirmed convictions and sentence on direct appeal; Pavatt exhausted state remedies and filed a §2254 habeas petition; this court granted COA on HAC sufficiency and instruction issues and selected ineffective‑assistance claims.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief as to conviction issues (photographs/ineffective assistance) but reversed the sentence: it held the OCCA failed to apply a constitutionally adequate narrowing construction of the HAC aggravator (i.e., one that meaningfully limits death‑penalty eligibility), rendering the HAC application unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment principles; remanded for further proceedings on sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constitutional sufficiency of HAC aggravator (Eighth Amendment) | Pavatt: evidence does not show torture/serious physical abuse or conscious physical suffering sufficient to narrow class of death‑eligible offenders. | State: medical testimony, Brenda's 911 statements, and circumstantial facts (victim clutching bag, multiple wounds) suffice to show conscious suffering; OCCA applied Oklahoma law. | Court: Reversed sentence — OCCA failed to apply a constitutionally acceptable narrowing (Godfrey/Maynard line); as applied the HAC broadened eligibility impermissibly. |
| 2. Adequacy of jury instruction requiring finding of "conscious physical suffering" | Pavatt: trial court failed to instruct jury adequately that it must find conscious physical suffering beyond reasonable doubt. | State: pre‑DeRosa instruction tracked then‑existing OUJI and OCCA precedent; claim procedurally barred or, if reviewed, adequate. | Court: Did not need to decide instructional claim after ruling HAC application unconstitutional; issue granted COA but majority reversed on HAC sufficiency alone. |
| 3. Ineffective assistance re: admission of sympathy/victim‑impact evidence (video, witness statements, premortem photos) | Pavatt: trial/appellate counsel failed to object/appeal regarding prejudicial victim‑sympathy evidence and failed to investigate/mitigate. | State: many claims procedurally defaulted; objections that would have failed make counsel not deficient; where preserved, no prejudice given overwhelming evidence. | Court: Affirmed denial of relief on conviction claims — most claims barred; preserved claim re photos lacked prejudice given record; ineffective‑assistance claims did not entitle to relief on guilt. |
| 4. Remedy following invalidation of HAC aggravator | Pavatt: invalidation requires resentencing or other relief. | State: noted jury also found remuneration aggravator; effect on sentence unresolved and should be addressed on remand. | Court: Reversed sentence and remanded for further proceedings; left disposition (resentencing, effect of remaining aggravator, reweighing) to district court and state process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upheld guided discretion capital schemes; framework for narrowing aggravators)
- Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) (aggravator invalid where state failed to apply a narrowing construction; requires principled distinction)
- Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988) (invalidated Oklahoma HAC as vague absent narrowing; endorsed requirement of torture or serious physical abuse and conscious suffering)
- Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (aggravating circumstances must narrow class of death‑eligible defendants)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating factors operate as elements requiring jury finding)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (evidence sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) (Eighth Amendment requires channeling sentencer's discretion; interpreting prior precedent)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (AEDPA does not bar relief where state court failed to apply controlling federal standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (§2254(d) review applies even when state court gives unexplained denials)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Sixth Amendment requires jury to find facts necessary for death sentence; discussed as relevant to appellate reweighing/remedy)