Pavatt v. Carpenter
Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 14-6117,14-6117 |
Citation | 928 F.3d 906 |
Parties | James Dwight PAVATT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Mike CARPENTER, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Sarah M. Jernigan (Patti Palmer Ghezzi, with her on the briefs), Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, appearing for Appellant.
Jennifer L. Crabb, Assistant Attorney General (Mike Hunter, Attorney General, with her on the briefs), Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, appearing for Appellee.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, HARTZ, HOLMES, MATHESON, BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, McHUGH, MORITZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner James Pavatt was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Pavatt was sentenced to death for the first degree murder conviction and ten years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction. After exhausting his state court remedies, Pavatt filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied Pavatt’s petition, and also denied Pavatt a certificate of appealability (COA). Pavatt sought and was granted a COA by this court with respect to five issues.
The original hearing panel affirmed the district court’s denial of relief with respect to Pavatt’s convictions, but in a divided decision reversed the denial of relief with respect to Pavatt’s death sentence and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In doing so, the panel majority concluded that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) "did not apply a constitutionally acceptable interpretation of Oklahoma’s [especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) ] aggravator in determining [on direct appeal] that the aggravator was supported by sufficient evidence." Pavatt v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1115, 1132 (10th Cir. 2017) ( Pavatt Federal Appeal ).1
Respondent filed a petition for rehearing en banc .2 We granted respondent’s petition and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing a number of questions concerning Pavatt’s challenges to the HAC aggravator. Having received those briefs and after additional oral arguments addressing those questions, we conclude that Pavatt’s Eighth Amendment "as-applied" challenge to the HAC aggravator—the issue that the original panel majority relied on in granting him relief—is, for a number of reasons, procedurally barred. We also conclude that the other issues raised by Pavatt on appeal lack merit. Consequently, we vacate the prior panel opinion and affirm the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief with respect to both Pavatt’s convictions and death sentence. We also deny Pavatt’s request for an additional COA.
Factual background
The background facts of Pavatt’s crimes were outlined by the OCCA in resolving Pavatt’s direct appeal:
to her arm. The Andrew children were not, in fact, packed and ready to leave when Rob Andrew arrived; they were found in a bedroom, watching television with the volume turned up very high, oblivious to what had happened in the garage.
Brenda was taken to a local hospital for treatment. Her behavior was described by several witnesses, experienced in dealing with people in traumatic situations, as uncharacteristically calm for a woman whose husband had just been gunned down. One witness saw Brenda chatting giddily with [Pavatt] at the hospital later that night.
was caused by a .22–caliber bullet, apparently fired at close range, which was inconsistent with her claim that she was shot at some distance as she ran from the garage into the house. About a week before the murder, [Pavatt] purchased a .22–caliber handgun from a local gun shop. On the day of the murder, [Pavatt] borrowed his daughter’s car and claimed he was going to have it serviced for her. When he returned it the morning after the murder, the car had not been serviced, but his daughter found a .22–caliber bullet on the floorboard. In a conversation later that day, [Pavatt] told Larson never to repeat that Brenda had asked him to kill Rob Andrew, and he threatened to kill Larson if she did. He also told her to throw away the bullet she had found in her car.
Police also searched the home of Dean Gigstad, the Andrews’ next-door neighbor. There they found evidence that someone had entered the Gigstads’ attic through an opening in a bedroom closet. A spent 16–gauge shotgun shell was found on the bedroom floor, and several .22–caliber bullets were found in the attic itself. There were no signs of forced entry into the Gigstads’ home. Gigstad and his wife were out of town when the murder took place, but Brenda Andrew had a key to their home. The .22–caliber bullet found in Janna Larson’s car was of the same brand as the three .22–caliber bullets found in the Gigstads’ attic; the .22–caliber bullet fired at Brenda and retrieved from the Andrews’ garage appeared consistent with them in several respects. These bullets were capable of being fired from the firearm that [Pavatt] purchased a few weeks before the murder; further testing was not possible because that gun was never found. The shotgun shell found in the Gigstads’ home was of the same brand and odd gauge as the 16–gauge shell found in the Andrews’ garage. Ballistics comparison showed similar markings, indicating that they could have been fired from the same weapon. Whether these shells were fired from the 16–gauge shotgun Rob Andrew had left at the home was impossible to confirm because, as noted, that gun also turned up missing.
In the days following the murder, [Pavatt] registered his daughter as a signatory on his checking account, and asked her to move his belongings out of his apartment. He obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. Sharp
...show cause and prejudice, we apply an anticipatory procedural bar and decline to consider this claim. See Pavatt v. Carpenter , 928 F.3d 906, 924 (10th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (holding that the habeas petitioner's appellate argument was subject to an anticipatory procedural bar because the arg......
-
Finlayson v. State
...2007) ).14 We reaffirmed Fairchild in Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenter, 916 F.3d 885, 903–05 (10th Cir. 2019), and in Pavatt v. Carpenter, 928 F.3d 906, 933–35 (10th Cir. 2019).15 Utah has recently reaffirmed that it, too, applies that same federal standard, as established in Strickland v. Was......
-
Finlayson v. Utah, Case No. 2:15-CV-818-DAK
...assistance of appellate counsel, the Court now dismisses the following issues: 2.B., 2.C., 3.A. and 3.B. See Pravatt v. Carpenter, 928 F.3d 906, 934 (10th Cir. 2019). So these issues were never in play to be excused for cause under Martinez and progeny. The seven grounds of ineffective assi......
-
Tryon v. Farris
...the opportunity to effectively raise ineffectiveness claims. See Cuesta-Rodriguez, 916 F.3d at 904-05; see also Pavatt v.Carpenter, 928 F.3d 906, 934 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding that unique circumstance where petitioner was represented by the same attorney at trial and on appeal did not estab......
-
Sentencing
...576 (9th Cir. 2018) (narrowing function adequately served by law permitting murder of witness as aggravating factor); Pavatt v. Carpenter, 928 F.3d 906, 930 (10th Cir. 2019) (narrowing function adequately served by jury instruction of heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor); Marqua......
-
Review Proceedings
...because defendant’s “outward manifestations of gang involvement” sufficient to trigger sentencing enhancement); Pavatt v. Carpenter, 928 F.3d 906, 917, 922 (10th Cir. 2019) (due process not violated because lower court finding that “evidence supporting [defendant’s] conviction was constit......