Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Steve Alan Boggs - Arizona

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Steve Alan Boggs - Arizona




    Facts of the Crime:

    Steve Boggs and Christopher Hargrave formed a white supremacist organization called the Imperial Royal Guard. Hargrave met and began dating Gayle Driver, the daughter of the owners of a pawnshop.

    In April 2002, Hargrave began working at a Jack-In-The-Box in the Mesa/Chandler area. On May 15, Hargrave was fired from the Jack-In-The-Box for stealing. Hargrave had been living in a trailer on the Driver's property, and he was asked to leave when he was fired from his job.

    On May 19, 2002, Boggs and Hargrave went to rob the Jack-In-The-Box restaurant. Hargrave dressed in his work uniform and gained entrance to the restaurant under the guise that he had been called back to work. Once inside, Hargrave distracted two employees while Boggs went through the back door. Boggs and Hargrave then took the three employees into the cooler and shot them several times in the back.

    After stealing money from the registers and from each victim, Boggs and Hargrave left the store and went to a nearby bank to withdraw money using one of the victim's stolen credit cards. One of the victims managed to crawl to a nearby phone and call police, as well as alert a customer, who also phoned the police.

    Two days after the murder, Boggs traded the murder weapon for another gun at the Driver's pawn shop. The Drivers contacted the police, and Boggs was subsequently arrested when police confirmed the gun was the murder weapon from the restaurant.

    The victims were Kenneth Brown, 27, Beatriz Alvarado, 31, and Fausto Jimenez, 30.

    Boggs was sentenced to death on February 21, 2006.

    Hargrave was also sentenced to death. For more on Hargrave, see: http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/...rgrave+arizona

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    No. 08-6487 *** CAPITAL CASE ***
    Title:
    Steve Alan Boggs, Petitioner
    v.
    Arizona
    Docketed: September 25, 2008
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Arizona
    Case Nos.: (CR-05-0174-AP)
    Decision Date: June 16, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 11 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 27, 2008)
    Nov 14 2008 Brief of respondent Arizona in opposition filed.
    Nov 26 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
    Dec 15 2008 Petition DENIED.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...es/08-6487.htm

  3. #3
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On September 30, 2014, Boggs filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ari...cv02165/885303

  4. #4
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On March 27, 2020, Boggs' habeas petition was DENIED by Chief United States District Court G. Murray Snow (G.W. Bush).

    https://docs.justia.com/cases/federa...2165/885303/73

    On April 24, 2020, Boggs filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ci...s/ca9/20-99006

  5. #5
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Supreme Court sends 6 death row cases back to Arizona courts after Cruz ruling

    By Jimmy Jenkins
    AZ Central

    The U.S. Supreme Court is sending six death row cases back to Arizona trial courts for reconsideration in light of a recent ruling.

    The high court on Monday vacated judgments for convicted murderers Johnathan Burns, Steve Boggs, Ruben Garza, Fabio Gomez, Steven Newell and Stephen Reeves. The cases will be returned to the superior courts in Arizona "for consideration," which could take several forms, including parties filing supplemental briefings or the courts issuing new rulings.

    Monday's ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled in favor of John Cruz, who challenged his death sentence because he was not permitted to tell jurors if he were given a life sentence, if it would be without parole.

    Three people have already had their death sentences vacated by the Arizona Supreme Court, also because of the Cruz ruling, which relied on a key principle established in a 2016 case, Lynch v. Arizona.

    This week, the question before the high court was whether Arizona's courts were "required" to apply the Lynch standards to these six cases after the fact.

    The state had argued that the defense team never asked the trial court to instruct the jury they were ineligible for parole, and thus relinquished their right to appeal on that basis. They also argued that the failure to inform jurors never harmed their defense because prosecutors never brought up the key issue of their potential "future dangerousness."

    But attorneys for Burns and the other petitioners argued in briefings to the U.S. Supreme Court that federal law trumped the state courts' interpretations.

    "It is difficult to imagine a state rule that more clearly discriminates against federal law than the one at issue here. It prohibits state postconviction courts from applying decisions that federal law requires postconviction courts to apply," Burns' lawyers wrote.

    Arizona's death row:These are the prisoners awaiting execution

    The entire legal debate about this aspect of Arizona's death penalty stems from the 1996 Supreme Court case Simmons v. South Carolina. It set the precedent for defendants to be able to tell juries that they would not be eligible for parole if they were sentenced to life in prison instead of death. But for many years, Arizona refused to apply the ruling.

    In the 2016 ruling Lynch v. Arizona, the court made clear the ruling did, in fact, apply to Arizona. The six men who were granted certiorari on Monday sought post-conviction relief in light of Lynch but were denied by the state supreme court. Granting certiorari means the court agreed to review the cases.

    After the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the Cruz sentencing, the six men also sought relief, which the high court granted.

    Emily Skinner, an attorney with the Arizona Capitol Representation Project, says the Cruz ruling was important because it stated that the Lynch decision was a "significant change" in Arizona law.

    "There is a rule of criminal procedure in Arizona that allows conviction petitioners to allege that there had been a significant change in the law that applies to their case," Skinner said. "In Mr. Cruz's case, the Arizona Supreme Court had held that Lynch wasn't a significant change in the law, it was merely a significant change in the application of the law. And so, the relevant Rules of Criminal Procedure did not apply."

    Skinner said the Cruz ruling means that now the rules do apply.

    Skinner said the Supreme Court granting certiorari to Burns and his co-petitioners is doing justice to ensure that juries are properly instructed on the meaning of a life sentence in Arizona.

    She said there are likely many more cases in the pipeline that could also be revisited under Cruz.

    "There's a number of people who still have their post-conviction petition pending in the superior court, who may have lost on the Lynch claim, but they haven't made their way up to petition for review yet at the Arizona State Supreme Court."

    At least nine people are seeking post-conviction review. Still, as many as 30 capital defendants may be affected by the decision, according to Elizabeth Bentley, director of the University of Minnesota Law School's civil Rights Appellate Practice.

    Attorneys for Burns and his co-petitioners said the state's legal stance on those cases was "nothing short of the nullification of a constitutional right for defendants sentenced to death in Arizona."

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...g/69978631007/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •