*1 Peldhacker, Phoenix, ap- William H. pellant. Arizona, Appellee, STATE HAYS, Justice. GERLAUGH, Appellant. It has come to our attention that in Leonard
Darrick our opinion 19, 1982, 134 filed October 5214, 5216. Nos. we failed set forth our independent review of the regard evidence Arizona, ing mitigating circum Banc. En stances. None of the issues raised by coun sel on appeal concerned the penalty imposed Jan. 1983. we, nevertheless, have an obligation
examine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine if the evidence supports penal ty. denied, cert. 433 U.S.
2988, 53
The trial court in special its verdict found the following aggravating circum stances:
1. appellant That has been convicted of which, offense for under Arizona law, a sentence of life imposable; 2. That appellant committed this of- fense in expectation of receipt value; something of 3. appellant That committed the offense heinous, in an especially cruel or de- praved manner.
The court further found that the fact appellant was 19 years age the time of the commission of the offense might be considered a mitigating circum- stance, and further found no mitigat- ing presented circumstances were court nor were they present in the record. independent review, we find that the findings of the trial court are fully supported by an abundance of evidence. would serve no useful purpose to reiterate the horrible details of the “especially hei- nous, cruel or depraved manner” in which the murder was accomplished.
We find no could record which circumstances; age this includes the appellant. William we must matter which Corbin, Atty. Gen. There is one final K. Robert Cole, Asst. following quota- R. as indicated David address III and J. Schafer Richmond, supra: tion from Phoenix, appellee. Gen., Attys. *2 90 whether the The court trial court was also correct in finding
“[This
determine]
sentences of death are excessive or dis-
the existence of
13-703(F)(5),
A.R.S.
that
§
penalty imposed
defendant committed the crime for pe
cases, considering
cuniary gain.
Clark,
similar
both the crime
In State v.
126 Ariz.
428,
and the defendant....”
cert. denied 449
1067,
796,
101
66
S.Ct.
114 Ariz. at
(1980), we held that
aggravating
cir
It is obvious that the evidence in this case
cumstance was not limited to the “contract”
takes it far
the norm in homicides.
beyond
killing situation, but
any
rather
involves
The
of the death
here
imposition
murder committed for “financial motiva
arbitrary
cannot be characterized as an
tion.”
Id. at
priate in the instant case.
I
heinous, cruel,
depraved
especially
that
of this most serious
13-703(F)(6). We
A.R.S. §
manner.”
requires
thorough
sanction
a more
enunci-
circumstance
that this
ation
than
contained in the
of our reasons
here, as the victim Schwartz
present
supplemental opinion.
held on
in a cruel manner.
killed
cruelty involves
that
numerous occasions
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
on
and distress
pain
the infliction of
every
death penalty case we must con
prior
deaths.
to their
victims
“independent
duct an
review of the facts Gretzler,
that
presence
establish the
or absence of
526, 543,
(1981).
Under this stan-
(citations omitted) We then “de
dard
killing was clearly cruel.
termine for ourselves if the latter
victim,
Before murdering the
the killers
the former when we find both to be
subjected him to severe beatings
peri-
for a
present.” State v.
od lasting between ten and fifteen minutes.
omitted),
(1976) (citations
With the victim still struggling,
two of his
rt.
denied 433
ce
assailants held him down to the road while
third,
Gerlaugh, got into the victim’s
The
court
car and ran
correctly
trial
found the
him over with it several times.
13- The
of A.R.S.
evidence shows that although the vic-
§
703(F)(1),
hurt,
been convict-
tim was badly
defendant had
he was still conscious at
time,
impris-
began
ed
another offense for which life
and in fact
pleading with
onment
Defend- his assailants
imposable.
or death was
to tell him the reason
their
previous
robbery,
ant has a
conviction for
attack.
Defendant
then took a
under former
screwdriver
felony
car,
A.R.S.
from the rear
§
which
which a maximum sentence of life
was used to stab the victim numerous times
former
until
imposable
onment was
under
his death. By killing
in this
Schwartz
manner, the
13-643.
murderers caused him to suffer
pain
clearly
hand,
to an
constitutes
extent which
considerations
for harsh-
sentencing
punishment
under
statute.
er
cruelty
for Gerlaugh included his
record of assaultive
greater
mitigation
the defendant offers that
level maturity
than Enci-
he
at the time of the
was nineteen
old
nas,
complete
and his
lack of remorse when
The
in view
judge
crime.
trial
found
*3
discussing the crime. The sentences of
Gerlaugh’s
of
maturi-
defendant
individual
defendants,
different,
these two
while
are
ty
this
by
age, youth
and
therefore still proportionate.
in
mitigating
not a substantial
assessment,
addition,
by
this case. We
with this
sentence received
de
no
cir-
fendant
find
there are
to sen
given
out-
sufficiently
cumstances
substantial
to
tences
in other cases. The cases of
weigh
Gretzler,
supra;
circumstances
State v.
v. (Ricky)
State
Tison,
this
present.
penalty
proper
supra;
The death
in
(Raymond)
v.
State
case.
(1981);
Ariz.
for lenience in the case Encinas included offender, fact that he was a first-time record;
having youth, criminal his crime; eighteen at
being the time of the genuine expressed remorse he participation these events. On the against charges remaining 1. The accom- possibility parole onment without Leisure, trial, plice, brought twenty-five years, were not twenty- and a sentence of disposed through comprehen- instead were consecutively one to be served to the two plea agreement covering sive (Nos. 5217, 5246, this and other life terms. State v. Leisure & alleged Through agreement Decision, crimes. he re- Septem- Memorandum filed 13 1982). ceived two concurrent sentences life ber