State v. Nunley, 2011 Mo. LEXIS 127

Nunley pled guilty to first degree murder, armed criminal action, forcible rape, and kidnapping, and waived jury sentencing for strategic reasons to avoid death punishment.
Following remand for re-sentencing, Nunley’s original guilty plea and jury-sentencing waiver remained valid, and Ring v. Arizona and Whitfield do not apply.
Nunley was sentenced to death after a 1994 sentencing hearing by Judge O'Malley, who considered mitigation and Nunley’s prior plea.
Nunley challenged withdrawal of his plea and jury sentencing rights; the trial court denied withdrawal and proceeded to a new penalty phase.
Missouri law §565.006.2 generally precludes jury sentencing in homicide cases where the defendant pleads guilty, and Nunley argued this was unconstitutional under Ring/Whitfield.
The court held that Ring/Whitfield do not apply due to Nunley’s guilty plea and strategic waiver; the plea and waiver remained valid on remand, and §565.006.2 is constitutional as applied to Nunley; Deck’s retroactivity issue is not retroactive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ring/Whitfield applicability to Nunley	Nunley argues Ring/Whitfield apply; jury must determine sentencing facts.	Nunley knowingly waived jury sentencing; Ring/Whitfield do not apply to a guilty plea with waiver.	Ring/Whitfield do not apply; waiver valid; rights not violated.
Validity of original guilty plea after remand	Original plea/waiver should be fresh on remand; different sentencing judge invalidates waiver.	Original guilty plea and waiver remained valid; remand did not negate the waiver.	Original guilty plea and jury-sentencing waiver remained valid after remand.
Constitutionality of §565.006.2 as applied to Nunley	Statute unlawfully precludes jury sentencing in light of Ring/Whitfield.	Statute constitutional as applied; Nunley knowingly chose judge sentencing to avoid jury sentencing.	Section 565.006.2 is constitutional as applied to Nunley.
Proportionality review and Deck retroactivity	Deck requires broader proportionality review comparing to life-without-parole cases; retroactive application violates due process.	Deck is not retroactive; proportionality review limited to death-penalty cases did not violate rights.	Deck not retroactive; proportionality review properly limited.

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury determines aggravating factors for death penalty)
Whitfield, 107 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. banc 2003) (retroactivity of Ring in Missouri; proportionality contexts)
State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (proportionality review scope (non-retroactive concurrences))
State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. banc 2010) (proportionality review framework; not retroactive)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Steele, 341 S.W.3d 634 (Mo. banc 2011) (waiver validity post-Ring/Whitfield context)