State v. Vermuele
226 Ariz. 399
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Vermuele was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder of her son, Spencer C., in Tucson, Arizona.
- The trial court sentenced Vermuele to natural life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- Vermuele argues the natural-life sentence is excessive and that the court failed to consider mitigating evidence.
- Stabbing occurred after a loud July 2008 argument; Spencer died from a stab wound penetrating his heart and lung, among other injuries; Vermuele sustained a stab wound to her abdomen.
- The defense contends mitigation evidence (age, medical history, difficult childhood, substance abuse, mental disorder, remorse) should have been weighed.
- The court addressed sentencing procedurally, including whether a forfeiture/waiver occurred due to lack of trial-court objections, and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether natural life was excessive. | Vermuele argues life without parole is excessive. | Vermuele contends mitigating evidence should reduce the sentence. | Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed mitigation evidence. | Vermuele asserts court erred by not considering evidence within mitigation. | The court could consider broad mitigating factors and remonstrated weight given to each. | Court did not err in considering mitigation; remorse weighed; other factors properly not found mitigating. |
| Whether Vermuele forfeited review by not raising sentencing issues earlier. | State argues lack of trial-court objections forfeits appellate review. | Because sentencing pronouncement is final and unique, arguments may be preserved on appeal. | Forfeiture not required for sentencing errors arising at pronouncement; appellate review preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (limits waiver and emphasizes narrow review for unraised issues)
- State v. Davis, 226 Ariz. 97 (App. 2010) (waiver/forfeiture considerations in post-verdict challenges)
- State v. Thomas, 142 Ariz. 201 (App. 1984) (sentence modification only within specific Rule 24.3 scope)
- Willmon v. State ex rel. Eyman, 16 Ariz. App. 323 (1972) (open-court judgment effective on pronouncement)