SANCHEZ v. STATE
2017 OK CR 22
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Anthony Castillo Sanchez was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy; jury found three aggravators and sentenced him to death (murder), 40 years and $10,000 (rape), and 20 years and $10,000 (sodomy).
- Direct appeal affirmed by Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Habeas and earlier post-conviction relief were previously denied in federal and state courts.
- Sanchez filed a second application for post-conviction relief based primarily on a 2016/2017 statistical study (Pierce, Radelet & Sharp) published in the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission Report showing race/gender disparities in Oklahoma death-penalty charging and sentencing (1990–2012).
- Sanchez argued the study constituted newly discovered evidence demonstrating that race and/or victim race/gender produced a greater risk of execution and thus violated his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- He sought discovery (DA office policies, case-level demographic/sentencing data) and an evidentiary hearing to probe prosecutorial/jury bias in his case.
- The Court denied the second application and related motions, holding the claim procedurally barred as not shown to be newly unavailable and, alternatively, insufficient as a matter of proof to meet the clear-and-convincing standard for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Pierce/Radelet/Sharp study is newly discovered factual basis allowing a second post-conviction application | Sanchez: study (2017) revealed race/gender disparities not previously ascertainable and thus is newly available evidence | State: patterns were ascertainable earlier; Sanchez failed to show due diligence or that facts were previously unavailable | Court: Procedural bar — petitioner did not show the factual basis was unavailable through reasonable diligence |
| Whether statistical evidence of statewide race/gender disparity establishes a constitutional violation in Sanchez’s case | Sanchez: statewide statistics show race/gender were decisive factors in charging and sentencing; therefore his sentence is tainted | State: aggregate disparities do not demonstrate purposeful discrimination in this specific prosecution; legitimate reason is the defendant’s conduct and aggravators | Court: Insufficient on merits — statistics do not prove discriminatory intent or that, but for it, no reasonable factfinder would impose death (citing McCleskey principle) |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to discovery of DA policies and extensive homicide data and an evidentiary hearing | Sanchez: discovery and hearing needed to show how race/gender influenced decisionmakers in his case | State: discovery/hearing unnecessary because claim is procedurally barred and statistical evidence is legally insufficient to show constitutional error | Court: Denied discovery and hearing because claim was procedurally barred and inadequate on the merits |
| Whether, even if proven, the proffered evidence would meet the clear-and-convincing standard for relief | Sanchez: combined evidence viewed with the record would establish that no reasonable factfinder would have rendered death | State: the record supports aggravators and death sentence; statistics alone cannot overcome the record-supported sentence | Court: Evidence insufficient under 22 O.S. §1089(D)(8)(b)(2); death sentence remains supported by trial record |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 223 P.3d 980 (Okla. Crim. App.) (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (statistical evidence of racial disparities insufficient to prove purposeful discrimination in an individual death-penalty prosecution)