Gardner v. State Of Utah, 20100436.
Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Writing for the Court | DURRANT, Associate |
Citation | 2010 UT 46,234 P.3d 1115 |
Parties | Ronnie Lee GARDNER, Petitioner and Appellant,v.STATE of Utah, Respondent and Appellee. |
Docket Number | No. 20100436.,20100436. |
Decision Date | 14 June 2010 |
234 P.3d 1115
2010 UT 46
Ronnie Lee GARDNER, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE of Utah, Respondent and Appellee.
No. 20100436.
Supreme Court of Utah.
June 14, 2010.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Thomas B. Brunker, Erin Riley, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.
DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice:
¶ 1 In 1985, Ronnie Lee Gardner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. For the past twenty-five years, his execution has been stayed pending resolution
¶ 2 Mr. Gardner appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the State.2 He argues that the district court incorrectly assessed his ability to bring his claims prior to the conclusion of his federal action and that, consequently, the court erred in concluding that his claims were barred. Mr. Gardner also argues that the district court had authority to make an exception to the rules that bar his claims, and that it erred in failing to exercise that authority because not reviewing the merits of the claims will result in egregious injustice. We agree with the district court's conclusion that Mr. Gardner's claims could have been raised in prior proceedings many years ago. We also conclude that Mr. Gardner has failed to demonstrate any injustice that would require us to set aside the statutory and procedural rules that control judicial review of his claim. Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State.
¶ 3 Our recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case draws liberally from the federal magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in Mr. Gardner's federal habeas corpus petition, the Tenth Circuit's decision in Mr. Gardner's federal habeas corpus appeal, and our own decisions in Mr. Gardner's prior appeals to this court. Because Mr. Gardner's claims in this petition center on the sufficiency of the process he has been afforded and the evidence considered by the courts that have reviewed his claims, and given the profound importance of the issues involved, we set forth the background of this case in some detail.
¶ 4 Mr. Gardner has been sentenced to death for the murder of Michael Burdell, an attorney Mr. Gardner shot and killed while attempting to escape from prison custody at a Salt Lake City courthouse. On April 2, 1985, Mr. Gardner was transported from the maximum security unit at the Utah State Prison to the Metropolitan Hall of Justice in Salt Lake City. Scheduled to appear in court to face charges for second degree murder, Mr. Gardner instead attempted to carry out a plan to escape from custody. As he entered the courthouse basement with his guards, a female accomplice handed Mr. Gardner a gun, which he turned on the
¶ 5 Mr. Gardner then forced the prison officer in the archives room to accompany him up the stairs to the second-floor lobby. As Mr. Gardner crossed the lobby, a uniformed bailiff was coming downstairs to investigate the commotion. Mr. Gardner shot and seriously wounded the bailiff and then proceeded up the stairs. On the next floor, Mr. Gardner took hostage a vending machine serviceman and forced the serviceman to accompany him outside the building. As Mr. Gardner exited the courthouse, the serviceman broke free and dived through a court service teller's window back inside the building. Once outside, Mr. Gardner, wounded, still shackled, and surrounded by police, threw down his gun and surrendered.
¶ 6 At his trial for the murder of Mr. Burdell, Mr. Gardner was represented by Andrew and James Valdez of Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. Their strategy was to argue that Mr. Gardner was under such pain and physical distress after being shot that shooting Mr. Burdell was an unintentional reaction-that it was an accident or, at most, done with reckless disregard for human life. Nevertheless, the jury convicted Mr. Gardner of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated kidnaping, escape, and possession of a dangerous weapon by an incarcerated person.
¶ 7 At the penalty phase of the trial, the State presented evidence that Mr. Gardner “posed a continuing threat even while incarcerated and that previous attempts to deter [Mr. Gardner's] criminal behavior had failed.” 4 Witnesses testified for the State about criminal behavior Mr. Gardner had engaged in since becoming incarcerated.5 For instance, the jury heard testimony from twelve State witnesses that corroborated each of the following instances of conduct: Mr. Gardner escaped from the minimum security facility in 1981; 6 after his escape he stabbed and beat a man at his former sister-in-law's house without having been provoked; 7 still out of custody after escaping from prison, he instigated a shootout at a friend's house that resulted in his arrest; 8 after the shootout, he told the arresting deputy that he knew the deputy's family and would have them killed; 9 also in 1981, he attempted to escape from the medium security facility at the Utah State Prison; 10 in 1984, after an incident in medium security
¶ 8 Defense counsel called six witnesses to testify in mitigation, although his trial counsel would later testify that Mr. Gardner prevented them from calling other witnesses and especially certain family members that might have presented evidence about his family background, his intellectual limitations, and possible physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. What the jury did hear was evidence that Mr. Gardner's older brother went to prison while they were still young; that Mr. Gardner had family problems as a child; that Mr. Gardner was taken from his home and put into state custody when he was eight or nine years old; that around that time, Mr. Gardner began missing school and inhaling (“huffing”) gas; that the State moved the young Mr. Gardner from placement to placement, including stays at shelter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Patterson v. State
...that we might, in an appropriate case, recognize an egregious injustice exception to the PCRA's procedural bars. See Gardner v. State , 2010 UT 46, ¶¶ 93–95, 234 P.3d 1115 ; Winward v. State , 2012 UT 85, ¶¶ 13–28, 293 P.3d 259.¶18 The district court, as Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65C req......
-
McCloud v. State
...See Pinder v. State , 2015 UT 56, ¶¶ 44–45, 367 P.3d 968 ; Taylor v. State , 2012 UT 5, ¶¶ 19–22, 270 P.3d 471 ; Gardner v. State , 2010 UT 46, ¶ 76, 234 P.3d 1115 ; Gardner v. Galetka , 2004 UT 42, ¶ 13, 94 P.3d 263. We do not foreclose the possibility that, in a future case, we may conclu......
-
Noor v. State, 20160797
...review the merits of certain time-barred petitions. Peterson v. Kennard , 2008 UT 90, ¶ 16 n.8, 201 P.3d 956 ; see also Gardner v. State , 2010 UT 46, ¶ 91, 234 P.3d 1115. While our common law writ authority appears to have been eliminated, we have suggested, although we have not reached th......
-
McCloud v. State (State in Interest of C.Z.)
...post-conviction petition. See Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶¶ 44-45; Taylor v. State, 2012 UT 5, ¶¶ 19-22, 270 P.3d 471; Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46, ¶ 76, 234 P.3d 1115; Gardner v. Galetka, 2004 UT 42, ¶ 13, 94 P.3d 263. We do not foreclose the possibility that, in a future case, we may c......