State v. Styers

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
En Banc

STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CR-90-0356-AP
Appellee, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) No. CR-89-12631
JAMES LYNN STYERS, )
) O P I N I O N
Appellant. )
_________________________________ )

Independent Review of Capital Sentence

SENTENCE OF DEATH AFFIRMED

________________________________________________________________

THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Capital Litigation Section
Jeffrey A. Zick, Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for State of Arizona

JULIE S. HALL, ATTORNEY AT LAW Oracle
By Julie S. Hall
Attorney for James Lynn Styers

________________________________________________________________

B E R C H, Chief Justice

¶1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found error in this

Court’s independent review of James Lynn Styers’ death sentence.

We granted the State’s request for this Court to conduct a new

independent review and, following that review, affirm the

sentence.
 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 A jury found James Lynn Styers guilty of the 1989

murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, kidnapping,

and child abuse of four-year-old Christopher Milke. State v.

Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 108-09, 865 P.2d 765, 769-70 (1993)

(describing factual and procedural history). After finding

three aggravating factors and no mitigating circumstances

sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, the trial judge

sentenced Styers to death. Id. at 109, 865 P.2d at 770. On

appeal, this Court reversed the conviction for child abuse, but

affirmed the other convictions. Id. at 109-14, 865 P.2d at 770-

75. After finding the evidence insufficient to prove the

pecuniary gain aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, we

concluded that the mitigating evidence was not sufficiently

substantial to warrant leniency in light of the remaining

aggravating circumstances and affirmed the sentence of death.

Id. at 114-17, 865 P.2d at 775-78. The Supreme Court denied

certiorari, 513 U.S. 855 (1994), and the mandate issued from

this Court on October 14, 1994, concluding direct review of this

case.

¶3 The district court denied Styers’ habeas corpus

petition. Styers v. Schriro, 2007 WL 86944 at *22 (D. Ariz.

Jan. 10, 2007). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and

granted relief, finding that in independently reviewing Styers’

- 2 -
death sentence, this Court improperly required a nexus between

Styers’ post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the crime and,

having found no such nexus, erroneously refused to consider

Styers’ PTSD as a mitigating circumstance. Styers v. Schriro,

547 F.3d 1026, 1034-36 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit

therefore instructed the district court to grant Styers’ writ of

habeas corpus “unless the state, within a reasonable period of

time, either corrects the constitutional error in petitioner’s

death sentence or vacates the sentence and imposes a lesser

sentence consistent with law.” Id. at 1036. The State then

moved this Court to remedy its initial independent review of

Styers’ death sentence by conducting a new independent review

and considering Styers’ PTSD as a mitigating circumstance. We

granted that motion and ordered briefing and oral argument.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Review

¶4 Before considering the mitigating effect of Styers’

PTSD, we must determine the scope of the task before us. Styers

asserts, and our dissenting colleague agrees, that we must

remand this case to the trial court for a new resentencing

proceeding because this case is now on “direct review,” and

under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), a jury must find all

aggravating factors. We disagree.

- 3 -
¶5 New rules of criminal procedure (like the rule

announced in Ring) apply retroactively to non-final cases

pending on direct review. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314,

328 (1987). For the purpose of this retroactivity rule, a case

is final when “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the

availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition

for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally

denied.” Id. at 321 n.6. Because Styers had exhausted

available appeals, his petition for certiorari had been denied,

and the mandate had issued almost eight years before Ring was

decided, his case was final, and he therefore is not entitled to

have his case reconsidered in light of Ring. See Schriro v.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004) (“Ring announced a new

procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases

already final on direct review.”).

¶6 In Teague v. Lane, the Supreme Court observed that the

“[a]pplication of constitutional rules not in existence at the

time a conviction became final seriously undermines the

principle of finality which is essential to the operation of our

criminal justice system.” 489 U.S. 288, 309 (1989). We agree

that applying Ring in this case would undermine the finality of

Styers’ convictions. As the Supreme Court further explained,

although

- 4 -
 [t]he right to jury trial is fundamental to our system
of criminal procedure, and States are bound to enforce
the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees as we interpret
them[,] . . . it does not follow that, when a criminal
defendant has had a full trial and one round of
appeals in which the State faithfully applied the
Constitution as we understood it at the time, he may
nevertheless continue to litigate his claims
indefinitely in hopes that we will one day have a
change of heart.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. at 358.

¶7 Styers nonetheless argues that by reconsidering

independent review, we reopen his case on direct review, and

Ring therefore applies. But regardless of what one calls the

type of review we now undertake, Ring requires jury findings

only of aggravating factors that make a defendant eligible for

the death penalty. 536 U.S. at 609. That is not the issue

here. The Ninth Circuit found no error in this Court’s prior

affirmance of Styers’ convictions and the two aggravating

factors. Because no error was found regarding these aggravating

factors, in this independent review we deem those factors

established. The Ninth Circuit found error only in our asserted

failure to consider a potential mitigating factor, 547 F.3d at

1034-36, an issue not governed by Ring. There is therefore no

reason or need to have a jury consider this issue. Instead, to

remedy the error found, we need only properly conduct

independent review of Styers’ death sentence. See A.R.S. § 13-

755(A) (2010) (requiring supreme court to review all death

- 5 -
sentences).1 By doing so, we fulfill our “duty . . . to review

the validity and propriety of all death sentences.” State v.

Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 493, 826 P.2d 783, 790 (1992).

B. Independent Review

¶8 We must consider whether Styers established that he had

PTSD and was affected by it at the time of the murder. See 1988

Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 155, § 1(C) (placing burden on defendant

to establish mitigating circumstances). Ultimately, we must

decide whether the evidence of Styers’ PTSD alters our earlier

determination that the mitigating evidence presented in this

case is not sufficient to warrant leniency in light of the

aggravating factors. See A.R.S. § 13-755.

¶9 Our earlier opinion affirmed as aggravating factors

that the four-year-old victim was younger than fifteen years of

age, A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(9),2 and that the offense was committed

in an “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” manner, A.R.S.

1
Our dissenting colleague states that § 13-755 applies only
on direct review. Dissent at ¶ 22. Although independent review
is normally conducted in an appeal from a death sentence,
nothing in § 13-755 limits our review to direct appeals.
Instead, for murders committed before August 2002, the statute
imposes an obligation on this Court to “review all death
sentences.” Id. § 13-755(A); see 2002 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 1,
§ 7(C) (5th Spec. Sess.).
2
In 2008, the capital sentencing statutes were renumbered as
A.R.S. §§ 13-751 to -759. 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301,
§§ 26, 38-41 (2d Reg. Sess.). Because there were no relevant
substantive changes, we cite the current version of the
statutes.

- 6 -
§ 13-751(F)(6). Styers, 177 Ariz. at 114-16, 865 P.2d at 775-

77. As noted above, because no error has been identified with

regard to our previous consideration and affirmance of those

aggravating factors, we deem them established for purposes of

this review of Styers’ sentence.

¶10 This Court’s earlier opinion concludes that the

proffered mitigation was “not sufficiently substantial to

warrant leniency.” Id. at 117, 865 P.2d at 778. According to

the Ninth Circuit, however, we erred in declining to consider

Styers’ PTSD in making this determination. Styers, 547 F.3d at

1035-36. Although we disagree with that court’s reading of our

opinion in Styers,3 we nonetheless today consider whether Styers’

PTSD, in combination with the other mitigating evidence,

provides mitigation sufficiently substantial to warrant

leniency.

3
This Court’s earlier opinion states that we “considered all
of the proferred mitigation and, like the trial court, [found]
it [was] not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency.”
Styers, 177 Ariz. at 117, 865 P.2d at 778 (emphasis added).
That statement does not, in our view, give a “clear indication”
that this Court “violated . . . constitutional mandates,” the
standard federal courts purportedly employ when considering
constitutional errors in state court proceedings. See Lopez v.
Ryan, 630 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). In fact, this
language is remarkably similar to that in Lopez, in which the
Ninth Circuit found “no indication” that this Court
impermissibly required the defendant to establish a “causal
nexus between mitigating evidence and the crime.” Indeed, in
finding no error, the Ninth Circuit relied on this Court’s
assertion “that it considered all the mitigating evidence on an
independent review of the record and found that it did not
warrant the exercise of leniency.” Id.

- 7 -
 1. Evidence of Styers’ PTSD

¶11 The record shows that Styers suffered from PTSD as a

result of his military service in Vietnam. See Styers, 177

Ariz. at 116, 865 P.2d at 777. Before trial, two mental health

professionals, a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist,

assessed Styers’ mental health and issued reports pursuant to

Rule 11 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Both

concluded that Styers likely suffered from PTSD. We therefore

take as established that Styers suffered from PTSD at or near

the time of the offense.

2. Weight of Styers’ PTSD

¶12 When assessing the weight and quality of a mitigating

factor, we take into account how the mitigating factor relates

to the commission of the offense. State v. Newell, 212 Ariz.

389, 405 ¶ 82, 132 P.3d 833, 849 (2006). Although we do not

require establishment of a nexus between the mitigating factors

and the crime before we consider the mitigation evidence, we may

consider the failure to show such a connection as we assess “the

quality and strength of the mitigation evidence,” id., and may

attribute less weight to the mitigating effect of a disorder if

the defendant fails to establish a relationship between the

disorder and the criminal conduct, see State v. Tucker, 215

Ariz. 298, 323 ¶¶ 117-18, 160 P.3d 177, 202 (2007) (giving

little weight to defendant’s personality disorder because no

- 8 -
evidence established that the “disorder impaired his ability to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform it to

the law at the time of the murders”); State v. Smith, 215 Ariz.

221, 235 ¶ 67, 159 P.3d 531, 545 (2007) (giving less weight to

defendant’s mental health evidence in light of testimony that

defendant “could have controlled his impulses and that he likely

knew what he was doing and that it was wrong”); State v.

Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 145 ¶¶ 138-39, 140 P.3d 899, 928 (2006)

(giving minimal weight to mitigating circumstance because the

defendant did not provide “any specific evidence that his brain

chemistry was actually altered by his past alcohol and drug

abuse so as to cause or contribute to his participation in the

murders”).

¶13 Like the defendants in Tucker, Smith, and Ellison,

Styers failed to present any evidence that his PTSD affected his

conduct at the time of the crime. In fact, the mental health

professionals who prepared Rule 11 reports concluded that there

was no connection. One wrote that the “relationship” between

the PTSD diagnosis and the offense was “nil.” The other

reported that he had “little or no information to indicate that

Mr. Styers was not of sound mind, [or] did not know what he was

doing at the time of the alleged offenses.”

¶14 Our decision in State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 908

P.2d 1062 (1996), is particularly instructive. In that case,

- 9 -
the defendant established that he had a difficult family

background and that, as a result, “[t]he psychologist diagnosed

defendant with post-traumatic stress disorder that could be

retriggered at any time, causing impulsive, irrational

behavior.” Id. at 293-94, 908 P.2d at 1078-79. We did not

weigh Spears’ PTSD diagnosis heavily in that case because

“[e]ven if this diagnosis is correct, it does not explain why

defendant murdered [the victim]. Defendant’s actions were

planned and deliberate, not impulsive.” Id. at 294, 908 P.2d at

1079.

¶15 Styers’ actions in this case were similarly “planned

and deliberate, not impulsive.” See id. Styers purchased guns,

and he and Roger Scott then took Christopher into the desert and

shot him three times in the head. Styers, 177 Ariz. at 108, 865

P.2d at 769. Styers did not claim that he acted impulsively or

was surprised by Christopher’s actions or presence. Styers then

concocted and participated in an elaborate ruse to mislead the

police, claiming that Christopher had been abducted at the mall

while Styers was in a restroom stall. Id. He also participated

in a lengthy “search” for Christopher after the murder. Id.

Styers’ entire course of action was not impulsive, but instead

was “planned and deliberate.” Thus, although we again

acknowledge Styers’ PTSD and consider it in mitigation, we give

it little weight.

- 10 -
 3. Propriety of Death Sentence

¶16 Because we attribute little mitigating weight to

Styers’ PTSD, we find no reason to alter the conclusion reached

in Styers’ direct appeal. We therefore hold that Styers’ PTSD,

in combination with all other mitigating evidence presented at

Styers’ mitigation hearing and previously considered by this

Court, is not sufficient to warrant leniency in light of the

aggravating factors proven in this case.

III. CONCLUSION

¶17 Following our independent review under A.R.S. § 13-

755, we affirm the sentence of death.

_____________________________________
Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice

CONCURRING:

_____________________________________
W. Scott Bales, Justice

_____________________________________
A. John Pelander, Justice

_____________________________________
Robert M. Brutinel, Justice

- 11 -
H U R W I T Z, Vice Chief Justice, dissenting

¶18 At the State’s request, the Court today independently

reviews the death sentence imposed by the superior court and

concludes that the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to

warrant leniency in light of the aggravating circumstances. I

do not quarrel with the substance of that determination. I have

reluctantly concluded, however, that given the procedural morass

created in this case by the Ninth Circuit, the Court’s action

today is not constitutionally permitted.

¶19 In Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that a

jury, not a judge, must find the aggravating circumstances that

make a defendant eligible for a death sentence. 536 U.S. 584,

609 (2002). Here, a judge found those aggravating

circumstances. Ring applies to all cases in which the

defendant’s sentence is still subject to direct appellate review

and therefore not “final.” See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S.

314, 328 (1987). Absent the federal habeas proceedings in this

case, I would agree with the Court that the direct review

process concluded when the Supreme Court of the United States

denied Styers’ petition for a writ of certiorari from our

opinion affirming his convictions and sentences. See Styers v.

Arizona, 513 U.S. 855 (1994).

¶20 But, of course, the denial of certiorari was not the

end of the story here. After the United States District Court

- 12 -
for the District of Arizona denied habeas relief, the Court of

Appeals reversed, ordering the district court to grant the writ

(and thus reduce Styers’ sentence from death to life), unless

the State corrected a purported “constitutional error” committed

during our direct review of Styers’ sentence. Styers v.

Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008). The district

court then entered an order conforming to the Ninth Circuit’s

opinion. Like the majority, supra at ¶ 10 n.3, I question

whether the Ninth Circuit correctly decided this case.

Unfortunately, however, that is not the issue before us.

¶21 The district court did not remand this case to us – we

are not adjuncts of federal courts exercising habeas

jurisdiction and they have no power to order us to conduct

further proceedings in criminal cases. See Commonwealth v.

Lesko, 15 A.3d 345, 364 (Pa. 2011) (noting that habeas corpus is

a civil proceeding in which a federal court cannot revise a

state court judgment) (citing Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 430-31

(1963)). Rather, the federal court in this case told the State

that if the alleged “error” was not corrected, a writ of habeas

corpus would issue. The State then had three choices: (1) do

nothing and allow Styers’ sentence to be reduced to life through

the writ; (2) request a new sentencing proceeding in the

superior court; or (3) ask us to redo our independent review.

The State understandably declined Option 1. As for Option 2,

- 13 -
the State correctly conceded at oral argument that under Ring, a

jury trial on aggravating circumstances would be required in any

new superior court sentencing proceeding. But, because the

purported constitutional error identified by the Ninth Circuit

occurred during direct appeal, not in the superior court, the

State quite reasonably decided not to seek a new sentencing

proceeding. The State instead chose Option 3, and asked us to

conduct a new independent review of the death sentence.

¶22 What separates me from my colleagues is my analysis of

the nature of this “do-over.” The statute mandating independent

review of death sentences, A.R.S. § 13-755(A), applies to direct

review, not to post-conviction proceedings. Indeed, no one

contends that the Court today is exercising Rule 32 post-

conviction review jurisdiction, and I am unaware of any other

context in which we review criminal sentences other than direct

review. But more importantly, independent review is the

paradigm of direct review – we determine, de novo, whether the

trial court, on the facts before it, properly sentenced the

defendant to death. Thus, what the State sought in this case –

and what the Court has granted – is a new direct review of the

death sentence, designed to obviate a constitutional “error”

occurring in the original appeal. Styers’ death sentence is

therefore plainly not final; after the conditional writ issued,

a death sentence could not be imposed without further action

- 14 -
from this Court, and Styers can plainly seek further direct

review, through certiorari, from the Court’s reinstitution of

that sentence today.

¶23 Because the Court today engages in direct review of

the death sentence, Styers is entitled to a jury trial on

aggravating factors unless the original jury made the requisite

findings or no reasonable jury could have failed to find them.

State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 65 P.3d 915 (2003). The original

jury found the facts to support the A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(9)

aggravator.4 But it is undisputed that the jury made no finding

as to the § 13-751(F)(6) aggravator, and the State does not

argue harmless error. Styers therefore is entitled to a new

aggravation phase proceeding as to the (F)(6) aggravator and,

under the current version of our death penalty statute, to a

jury in the sentencing phase. See Ring, 204 Ariz. at 562 ¶ 89,

65 P.3d at 943.

¶24 I understand the attraction of the course taken by the

Court today. The procedural difficulties in this case have been

caused by what we believe to be an erroneous decision by the

Ninth Circuit. A new sentencing proceeding will result in

further delay in this 22-year-old case, and given the

4
The superior court instructed the jury that an element of
one of the non-capital crimes charged was that the victim was
under fifteen years of age. The jury found Styers guilty of
that crime.

- 15 -
circumstances of this crime – the brutal and calculated murder

of a young child – it seems unlikely that a new sentencing

proceeding will produce a different result than the original

one. But such a proceeding, in my view, is constitutionally

mandated, and will likely bring this case to conclusion more

promptly than the new round of federal habeas proceedings that

will inevitably follow today’s decision.

¶25 I therefore respectfully dissent.

_____________________________________
Andrew D. Hurwitz, Vice Chief Justice

- 16 -