Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona
321 P.3d 415
Ariz.
2014
Check Treatment

*1 250 wounds, including a B. Death Sentence

сonsistent with defensive her arms. several wounds on broken nail and ¶ trial, Naranjo mitiga- During offered 88 Furthermore, daughter testified Rivera’s alleged intellec- relating evidence to his tion during the attack mother screamed that her illness, disability, mental and difficult tual [Naranjo] off.” The attemptеd push “to upbringing, argued that a life sentence spoke to daughter that Rivera also testified protect public. the was sufficient to Naranjo apartment. View- her after left the and re- each witness State cross-examined light ing in the most favorable the evidence jury did mitigating fаctor. The butted each verdict, sustaining the we conclude sufficiently proffered mitigation not find the reasonably find that Rivera was jury could leniency. A.R.S. to call for See substantial during the attack and suffered conscious 13-752(G). 13-751(0), (E); Morris, physical pain. See 215 mental and ¶ jury’s uphold ¶ must deter 89 We (uрholding P.3d at 220 Ariz. at 341 appropriate the sen mination that death is cruelty finding especial when evidence any juror if “reasonable could conclude tence strug- that the victims suffered and showed mitigation presented was not suffi II, murders); Sansing gled during the leniency.” ciently ¶ substantial to call (noting that Ariz. at 236 77 P.3d at 34 Gallardo, State v. wounds, pleas help, ... “defensive Even if we assume attempts to resist” establish victim’s] [the alleged mitigat Naranjo proved each of his anguish). mental factors, its discre ing the did not abuse ¶ Naranjo contends that the also finding mitigation tion in the insufficient adequаtely that he State did not demonstrate leniency. warrant that Rivera knew or should have known suggests because the would suffer. He IV. CONCLUSION during guilt phase prosecutor argued Naranjo’s convictions and 90 We affirm Naranjo’s a result of lifetime acts “were death sentences.5 abuse,” plausibly drug the State could not aggravation phase in the that “he maintain fully aware that his actions caused [Riv

was to suffer.”

era] Naranjo might That have been under drugs the influence of at the time of 321 P.3d 415 finding that Nar- preclude murder does not SANCHEZ, Juan Carlos Vicente anjo knew or should have known that Rivera Petitioner, By rejecting Naranjo’s insanity suffered. guilt phase, jury implicitly in the defense Naranjo capable found that was of under- AINLEY, Judge Tina R. The Honorable standing The rec- the nature of his actions. Superior Ari Court of the State of supports finding. Naranjo ord such a zona, YA in and for the COUNTY OF ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‍times, which itself stabbed Rivera twelve VAPAI, Respondent Judge. suggests that he should have known that she Moreover, during he suffered. his interview Arizona, Party Real in Interest. State of acknowledged during the that she screamed No. CV-13-0280-PR. attack. 87 Because reasonable evidence Supreme Court of Arizona. especially that Rivera’s murder was March 2014. cruel, jurors did not abuse their discre- finding. Delahanty, tion in so 226 Ariz. at 250 P.3d at 1137. which, previ- against acknowledges, Naranjo eighteen arguments as he this Court has raises

5. penalty, ously rejected. to revisit them here. constitutionality all of We dеcline of Arizona's death *2 (argued), Michael A. Shaw Shaw Law Firm PLLC, Cottonwood; Stoller, and David P. Prescott, for Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez. Polk,

Sheila Sullivan Yavapai County At- torney, Young Steven A. (argued), ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‍Deputy County Attorney, Prescott, for State of Ari- zona.

Amy Director, Armstrong, Schaye Natman (argued), Capital Representation Arizona Tucson, Project, Euchner, and David J. Ari- Justice, Attorneys Tucson, zona for Criminal for Amici Curiae Capital Represen- Arizona Project tation Attorneys and Arizona Criminal Justice. TIMMER,

Justice opinion of the Court. Steinle, 1 In Chronis v. we held that “Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant in a murder case a determination of as circumstances.” impor- of statewide recurring legal issue 211 this Arti- jurisdiction pursuant to have the trial court tance. We now hold We 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution timely request for a cle Section grant a defendant’s must 13.5(c), § 12-120.24. if the and A.R.S. even under probable-cause made a previously has aggrava- as to those determination DISCUSSION *3 ting circumstances.

I. BACKGROUND 13-752(B) ¶ Arizona Rule 6 A.R.S. ¶ 2011, indict- grand jury September 2 In a 15.1(i) pros- the direct of Criminal Procedure for several Vicente Sanchez ed Juan Carlos intent pretrial nоtice of an provide ecutor to offenses, degree murder. The including first aggra- penalty and a list of the death to seek Sanchez’s subsequently granted trial court prosecution the will vating circumstances jury grand remand the case to motion to 13.5(c) provides that such rely оn. Rule determination. probable-cause for a new charg- automatically “amend the will notice pending, the State motion was that While permits the defendant to ing document” and seek the death a notice of intent to filed sufficiency “challenge legal of an of several alleged the existence penalty and by filing a motion aggravating circumstance” in AR.S. circumstances listed aggravating request a Chronis pursuant to Rule 16 to 13-75KF). before us is whether hearing. The sole issue hearing once a entitled to this a defendant is ¶ 2012, grand jury re-indict- April 3 In already рrobable grand jury has found offenses. At Sanchez for the same ed alleged aggravating cir- supports the cause grand jury also found request, State’s turns on Because this issue cumstances. support three probable cause interpretations, we con- statutory and rule circumstances. review. See State v. Gutier- duct a de novo ¶ a motion to re- 4 Sanchez filed second ¶ 1276, 573, 19, rez, Ariz. 576 278 P.3d 229 cause, probable of mand for a new (2012). 1279 author- grand jury was not arguing that the aggravating circumstances ized to consider II. of the issue presentation that the State’s 13.5(e) аbility to re- usurped his under depends 7 Resolution of this issue commonly called a “Chronis quest what is jury initially grand has authori on whether motion, denied the hearing.” The trial court supports ag ty probable find that cause grand nothing precludes a reasoning that support gravating circumstances probable-cause deter- making the from penalty. The court imposition of the death The court alleged aggravates. mination on identify any majority did not such appeals subsequent motion for also denied nothing prohibits authority but noted that light hearing as moot in of the a Chrоnis Sanchez, action either. 233 this course of grand jury’s determination. ¶¶ 12-13, 308 P.3d at 1168-69. Ariz. at 17-18 that “Sanchez has a appeals It then concluded petitioned the court of 5 Sanchez a Rule procedure associated with the denial of his not to the special-action relief from 13.5(с)/Chronis hearing, but to a substantive hearing. A divided for a Chronis cause,” probable which was jurisdiction but determination of accepted court panel of the finding. relief, grand jury’s Id. at agreeing with the trial court satisfied denied ¶¶ 19-20, P.3d at 1171. The dissent entitled 308 capital case defendant is not that a majority errone ing judge reasoned that the grand jury if has to a Chronis jury’s statutory ously expanded the the exis- found that ¶ 29, at 1172 authority, at 21 308 P.3d id. alleged aggravating circumstances. tence of concluded, (Norris, J., dissenting), Cnty. Yavapai, Ainley ex rel. Sanchez others, grand jury’s ¶ that ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‍a this reason and aggravators determination of probable-cause granted review to resolve (App.2013). We holdings a defendant of a Chronis are confined to Sixth Amendment cannot ¶31, hearing, jury-trial apply at 21 P.3d at 1172. do id. considerations and not charging at 271 decisions. Id. 100 P.3d grand jury investigative 8 A is an at 21. body bring trial “whоse mission is to those points McKaney 10 The State out that may guilty and the inno [to] who be clear only grand jury required holds is not Marston’s, Strand, cent.” Inc. v. to consider not To fulfill grand jury prohibited doing is from so. mission, grand jurors are authorized to reasoned, however, McKaney also that re inquire into “offense[s]” and return indict quiring grand jury to consider “public §§ ments for 21- offense[s].” A.R.S. 13.1(a). aggravators

407, -413; expand cause for would its statu Ariz. R.Crim. P. tory authority charge offenses and could legislature “pub has defined an “offense” or unduly prejudice defendant. Id. at lic offense” as “conduct for which а sentence *4 ¶ 21, 100 272-73 P.3d at 22-23. That reason imprisonment to a term of or of a fine is 13-105(27). ing necessarily applies deciding in whether a provided by any § law.” AR.S. grand jury permitted probable is to find “Aggravating circumstances” do not fall with alleged aggravators. cause for in they merely guide this definition because sentencing pro determinations and do not ¶ 11 in non-capital Decisions eases punishable by scribe conduct that is a term support grand jury our conclusion that a is Allen, imprisonment of or fine. State v. Cf. permitted probable not to determine whether 125, 126, (1974) 502, 111 Ariz. 524 P.2d supports аggravating cause circumstances al (“Statutes authorizing the infliction of a more leged Birdsall, in capital a case. In State v. penalty persistent severe on one who is a 112, 113, 419, (1977), 116 Ariz. 568 P.2d new, offender do not separate, create a dis grounds by overruled on other State v. tinct, offense.”); independent, or substantive (1990), Burge, 167 Ariz. 804 P.2d 754 this 13-751(F) § (providing AR.S. aggrava that prior Court held that a conviction is not a ting circumstances are considered in “deter “public but something offense” rather that mining impose whether a sentence of enhances punishment. Consequently, death”). duty grand jury it is the of a “[s]ince however, argues, 9 The State that AR.S. offenses, charge only public they have no §§ grand jurors 21-407 and -413 authorize authority allegations to add to the indictment probable support alleged find aggra cause to punishment, which are concerned with circumstanсes, vating thereby mooting the charge public do not a offense.” Id. at 113- hearing request, defendant’s Chronis be 14, 568 P.2d at 420-21. Supreme cause the United States Court has ¶ Although we overruled Birdsall in held that aggravating circumstances are Burge, implicitly we nevertheless acknowl- equivalents” “functionаl ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‍of offense elements. edged Burge grand juries permit- in that are Arizona, 584, 609, Ring v. 536 U.S. 122 S.Ct. only by ted to act as authorized statute or (2002); Apprendi 153 L.Ed.2d 556 punishment-related allegations rule Jersey, New 530 U.S. 494 n. 120 S.Ct. charge “public do not a offense.” 167 Ariz. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435 addressed We 27-28, overruling at 804 P.2d at 756-57. Our argument a McKaney related in v. Fоreman of Birdsall was based on the fact that the County Maricopa, ex rel. 13-704(L) predecessor expressly A.R.S. (2004). There, 100 P.3d 18 the defendant grand jury authorized a allege prior that, argued requiring in addition to that a conviction, departure not because of a from any aggravating trial find circumstances grand jury’s authority the notion that the is sentencing purposes, Apprendi/Ring re in rooted statute or rule. Id. at quires grand jury or other neutral at 757. pretrial probable-cause arbiter amake find ing any alleged aggravating circum That notion holds true here. Unlike ¶ 10, 100 stanсes. Id. at 270 at Burge, 20. We the situations in Birdsall and no stat- disagreed, explaining Apprendi/Ring grand jury ute or rule authorizes a to deter- reasons, grand jury’s ag- For all these probable supports

mine whether cause support finding probable cause to alleged capital in a gravating circumstances alleged by grand jury here lacked three circumstances Because the case. request for nullity did not moot Sanchez’s authority, the State its was such hearing. a Chronis displace ‍‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‍rights under could not 13.5(c). Rule CONCLUSION ¶ Moreover, grand jury were even if the authority to grand jury laсks cause authorized to determine whether determine would supports alleged aggravators, Sanchez aggravating circumstances the existence of capital hearing. A

be entitled to Chronis Consequently, its capital in a ease. 13.5(c) to chal- right under Rule defendant’s support return of a “trae bill” sufficiency aggravator of an is lenge legal does not render circumstances grand jury on whether a neither conditioned request for a Chronis moot a defendant’s aggravator nor affected has addressed Regardless, hearing. because rulе, grand jury’s findings. Under the rights to a defen- superior procedural affords prosecutor files a notice of intent to once ease, any grand jury find- dant in a aggra- penalty the death and identifies seek concerning aggravating ings circumstances vating the defendant has a timely defendant of a re- cannot hearing. to a procedural Chronis Cf hearing. Accordingly, we quested Chronis Const, 5(5) (empowering art. 6 this the trial court’s order and the court of vacate procedur- Court to “make rules relative to all *5 to appeals’ opinion and direct the trial court court”); Chronis, any in al matters grant and hold a Chronis ¶ 17, (recognizing that at 562 208 P.3d at 213 hearing. challenge proce- hearing cause is dural). opinion of Justice TIMMER authored the Court, in which Chief Justice Vice Finally, reflects BALES, PELANDER, Justice and Justice objective greater pro this Court’s to afford joined, BRUTINEL and Chief Justice facing rights cedural to a defendant concurred. BERCH hearing permits A penalty. death Chronis the defendant to review written statements concurring in Chief Justice BERCH witnesses, made the state’s cross-examine result. witnesses, re present those evidence to agreе I with the result the Court alleged aggravators. but the state’s See reaches, unnecessary opine on but find it Chronis, 220 Ariz. at 562 208 P.3d at scope jury’s authority of the 13.5(e) hearing (holding that Rule uses holding hear 5); procedures generally in Rule described may can rule on have broad effect. We 5.3(a) (dеscribing proce Ariz. R.Crim. P. doing in the issue this case without so. hearings). preliminary dures for In con opinion, I as the Court 19 would base the trast, generally right the defendant has no reasoning paragraphs does in its in 14 and challenge grand jury’s proba the merits of a 13.5(e) provides on the fact that Rule ble-cause determination. Ariz. R.Crim. Cf capital in cases the to a defendants 12.9(a) challenge (permitting P. a motion to judge challenge before a the suffi- grand jury proceedings only if the defendant ciency circumstances. San- procedural right was denied a substantial or requested denied such a hear- chez but was qualified grand ju an number of insufficient that, ing. enough say It is as a defendant agreed finding). prosecu rors with the case, capital in he is entitled to one. tion cannot defendant of 13.5(c)’s option greater proce to invoke Rule rights by asking grand jury to deter

dural

mine al whether

leged aggravators.

Read the detailed case summary