State v. Chatman, P-83-524
| Decision Date | 17 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. P-83-524,P-83-524 |
| Citation | 671 P.2d 56 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oklahoma, Petitioner, v. Stan C. CHATMAN, District Judge, Canadian County, Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The District Attorney of Canadian County seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the Honorable Stan C. Chatman, District Judge, to proceed with resentencing in the case of State v. Steven Keith Hatch, a/k/a Steve Lisenbee, CRF-79-302 and CRF-79-303, in accordance with the directive of this Court in Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377 (Okl.Cr.1983).
In Hatch, this Court ordered reconsideration of the death sentences imposed in these cases in light of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). We stated:
[I]n light of Enmund, we deem it necessary for the sentence to give greater attention to the evidence concerning the appellant Hatch's individual participation and intent in the events which culminated in the murder/shootings.
Thus, we vacate the sentences of death and remand the cases to the Canadian County District Court for resentencing not inconsistent with Enmund v. Florida, supra, and this opinion.
On remand, the Honorable Judge Chatman issued an order on the 25th day of August, 1983, expressing his belief that he was without legal authority to impose any sentence but life imprisonment in these cases on resentencing. This belief was based on a perceived conflict between our order remanding for resentencing and a previous decision of this Court.
However, at the hearing before this Court on the petition for writ of mandamus, counsel for the respondent conceded that remand was proper, but argued that under the circumstances of this case full resentencing is impractical. He points to the untimely death of the original trial judge who conducted the non-jury trial and complains that resentencing would have to be conducted by a different judge who did not have the benefit of viewing the witnesses during the first, or guilt, stage of this case. He also suggests that each of those witnesses who testified in the guilt stage would have to be recalled at the sentencing hearing, but that many of the witnesses may not be available at this time. Counsel appears to argue that life imprisonment is the only proper sentence.
These contentions are not persuasive. The first supposes that the transcript of the testimony at the guilt stage of trial will be used in the resentencing hearing as a matter of course. However, the sentencing proceeding in a capital case is governed by the rules of evidence, Chaney v. State, 612 P.2d 269 (Okl.Cr.1980), which condition the use of prior testimony on a showing of necessity arising out of the unavailability of the witness. See 12 O.S.1981, § 2804(B)(1). Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatch v. State of Okl.
...with 21 O.S.1981, Sec. 701.10 and the directive of [Hatch I ], and make findings of fact and conclusions of law." Oklahoma v. Chatman, 671 P.2d 56, 57 (Okla.Crim.App.1983) (citation On resentencing, Judge Chatman found the same three aggravating circumstances that Judge Martin had found. He......
-
Castro v. State
...v. State, 720 P.2d 328, 337 (Okl.Cr.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 956, 107 S.Ct. 447, 93 L.Ed.2d 395 (1986); State v. Chatman, 671 P.2d 56, 57 (Okl.Cr.1983). Moreover, as we noted in Wade v. State, 624 P.2d 86, 91 (Okl.Cr.1981), the rationale for exempting sentencing proceedings from the ru......