377 P.3d 993
Ariz.2016Background
- Aaron Brian Gunches pled guilty to first-degree murder and kidnapping for the 2002 killing of Ted Price; the State sought the death penalty.
- At trial Gunches (competently) waived counsel and presented virtually no mitigation; the jury found two aggravators including (F)(2) (prior serious offense) based on a La Paz attempted-murder conviction and (F)(6) (heinous/depraved); this Court vacated the (F)(6) finding and remanded for a new penalty-phase trial.
- On remand Gunches again waived counsel, declined to present mitigation or request allocution-based leniency, and again stipulated to the La Paz conviction as the (F)(2) aggravator; a jury again returned a death sentence.
- Gunches appealed, raising: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing self-representation at the penalty phase; (2) whether the court erred in permitting him to waive mitigation; (3) whether the La Paz conviction could legally serve as the (F)(2) aggravator; and (4) misc. claims including the court’s response to a jury question and alleged prosecutorial misstatements.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed, finding no fundamental error in permitting self-representation or waiver of mitigation, holding the collateral attack on the prior conviction procedurally barred/untimely and controlled by precedent, and finding no prejudicial error in the court’s jury-answer or prosecutor’s remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Gunches' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Self-representation at penalty phase | Trial court should not have allowed Faretta waiver for sentencing; penalty phase is not a "criminal prosecution" and reliability concerns override self-representation | Defendant has a constitutional right to waive counsel for all critical stages including sentencing; waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Waiver valid; no fundamental error — defendant competently waived counsel and Faretta applies to penalty phase |
| 2) Waiver of mitigation evidence | Court erred by allowing Gunches to forego presenting mitigation (impermissible or involuntary) | Waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; court complied with Hausner procedures and defendant was familiar with process | No error — valid waiver of mitigation; defendant knowingly and voluntarily declined mitigation |
| 3) Sufficiency/challenge to (F)(2) aggravator (prior La Paz conviction) | La Paz no-contest plea was constitutionally infirm and could not be used as an (F)(2) aggravator; trial court should have considered the challenge | Prior conviction was stipulated to at first trial and again on remand; collateral attack in this capital case is procedurally improper/untimely — must challenge via Rule 32 in the other case; Cropper controls | Denied — challenge procedurally defaulted/untimely and barred by precedent; trial court did not err in refusing to strike (F)(2) |
| 4) Jury question & prosecutorial remarks | Court’s answer to juror (order-of-cases question) misstated law and barred consideration of mitigation; prosecutor incorrectly said no mitigation existed (despite guilty plea as potential mitigation) | The juror question was irrelevant/hypothetical once defendant had stipulated to the prior conviction; prosecutor’s statement that no mitigation was presented was factually supported by defendant’s choice; no prejudice shown | No reversible error — response to jurors appropriate; prosecutor’s remarks not a misstatement given defendant declined mitigation and did not assert plea as mitigation before jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognition of Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60 (2012) (procedures/requirements for valid waiver of mitigation evidence)
- State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181 (2003) (capital defendant may not collaterally attack a prior conviction in the capital case; must seek relief in the prior case)
- State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314 (1994) (reweighing death sentence required when a prior conviction used as an aggravator is reversed)
- State v. McCann, 200 Ariz. 27 (2001) (presumption of regularity attaches to prior convictions; state must prove constitutionality if defendant rebuts presumption)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error review framework)
- State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351 (2009) (recognition of right to self-representation in capital sentencing)
- Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299 (1990) (death sentence can be upheld even where defendant presents no mitigation)