Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Ruben Garza - Arizona

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

    Ruben Garza - Arizona




    Facts of the Crime:

    On December 1, 1999, Ruben Garza gunned down Ellen Franco and Lance Rush in their Waddell home.

    Ellen Franco had separated from her husband, Larry Franco, and moved into a home Rush shared with his fiancee, Jennifer Farley. Garza, nephew of Larry Franco, went to the Franco/Rush residence that evening, apparently to convince Ellen to reconcile with Larry.

    However, after Garza entered the West Valley home, he drew a handgun and shot Ellen Franco twice. Farley and Rush attempted to escape the same fate by locking themselves in a bedroom.

    Garza broke through the bedroom door and began struggling with Rush hile Farley hid in the closet. Garza shot Lance three times and sustained a gunshot wound to his own arm. Jennifer called 9-1-1 after Garza fled.

    Despite the efforts of paramedics and emergency surgeons, both Ellen Franco and Rush died from their gunshot wounds. Police arrested Garza the following day.

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    No. 07-7080 *** CAPITAL CASE ***
    Title:
    Ruben Garza, Petitioner
    v.
    Arizona
    Docketed: October 17, 2007
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Arizona
    Case Nos.: (CR-04-0343-AP)
    Decision Date: June 29, 2007
    Rehearing Denied: September 25, 2007

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 12 2007 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2007)
    Nov 16 2007 Brief of respondent Arizona in opposition filed.
    Nov 29 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2008.
    Jan 7 2008 Petition DENIED.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...es/07-7080.htm

  3. #3
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Arizona high court refuses to erase death sentence

    PHOENIX (AP) - The Arizona Supreme Court is refusing to erase the death sentence of a man convicted of two killings.

    Attorneys for Ruben Garza had asked that his death sentence be erased in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on determining whether somebody who claims mental disability can be executed.

    The ruling in a Florida case said states must look beyond an intelligence test score in borderline cases of mental disability,

    The state high court announced its order Wednesday without comment.

    Garza was sentenced to death in the 1999 killing of a man who shared a Waddell home with his fiancee and with the estranged wife of Garza's uncle.

    Garza was sentenced to life in prison in the killing of the uncle's estranged wife.

    http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/26...death-sentence
    "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

  4. #4
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On August 27, 2014, Garza filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ari...cv01901/879921

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Garza's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
    Case Nos.: (CR 1999-017624)
    Decision Date: July 29, 2013
    Discretionary Court
    Decision Date: August 27, 2014
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  6. #6
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,316
    Garza’s habeas petition was denied by the federal district court on December 9, 2021. He was granted COAs on two claims.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ar...cv01901/879921

    On January 7, 2022, Garza filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ci...s/ca9/22-99001
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  7. #7
    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
  •