Wertz v. State, 493 S.W.3d 772

Wertz was convicted by Sharp County jury on two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death; direct and post-conviction appeals affirmed, and current motion seeks recall of the mandate after alleging appellate-process defect.
During guilt phase, two counts involved separate murders; jury deliberated with two verdict forms for each count.
Penalty phase used a single combined set of 5-4-603 forms covering both murders.
Form 1 indicated two aggravators existed; Form 2 found no mitigating factors; Form 3 found aggravators outweighed mitigators and death was justified.
Form 4 provided a single sentencing option: life without parole or death; jury unanimously imposed death.
Major issue is whether the combined penalty-phase forms violated constitutional requirements and whether the appellate-process defect warrants recall of the mandate and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether combined penalty-phase forms violated the death-penalty safeguards.	Wertz argues the form combination prevented individualized sentencing.	State contends no Sixth Amendment violation because sentencing findings were unanimous.	Merit in the argument: combined forms undermine individualized sentencing.
Whether failure to address the penalty-form error on direct appeal constitutes an appellate-process defect warranting recall of the mandate.	Wertz asserts defect in appellate review justifies recall.	State argues no error in appellate process.	Recall granted; death sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 (Ark. 2003) (factors for recalling a mandate in death-penalty cases; extraordinary circumstances)
Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 (Ark. 2014) (modifies Robbins factors; breakdown in appellate process includes more than all-three-factor test)
Anderson v. State, 357 Ark. 180 (Ark. 2004) (sentencing form error involved essential matter; influences Rule 10(b)(ii) review)
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (mandatory or individualized sentencing in capital cases; humaneness in considering offender)
Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (necessity of reliable capital sentencing procedures)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (reliability of capital-sentencing procedures)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) ( Sixth Amendment; jury findings on aggravating factors)
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1976) (capital-sentencing procedures)