Rankin v. Payne

Decision Date22 February 2023
Docket Number5:06-cv-00228-JM
PartiesRODERICK LESHUN RANKIN PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
ORDER

JAMES M. MOODY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1. Roderick Rankin is an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction under three death sentences for the capital murders of Zena Reynolds, Ernestine Halford, and Nathaniel Halford. Having exhausted his state remedies, Rankin petitions this Court for federal habeas relief. For the reasons stated herein, the petition is denied.

2. Rankin admitted in a police interview that he killed the victims. He argued at trial that he was pressured into making a false confession, and that there was no physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene. A Jefferson County jury rejected the defense theory, finding Rankin guilty of three counts of capital murder. In the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found one aggravating circumstance-in the commission of capital murder, Rankin knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim. The jury unanimously found two mitigating circumstances probably existed: (1) the murder was committed while Rankin was under an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and (2) Rankin had no significant history of prior criminal activity at the time of the murder. Deciding the aggravator outweighed mitigating circumstances found by any juror to exist, the jury chose the death sentence for each capital-murder.

On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court remanded the case and directed the trial court to hold a hearing on Rankin's pretrial motion to suppress his statement. Rankin v State (Rankin I), 329 Ark. 379, 948 S.W.3d 397 (1997). After a hearing, the trial court denied the suppression motion. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. Rankin v State (Rankin II), 338 Ark. 723, 1 S.W.3d 14 (1999). The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. Rankin v. State (Rankin III), 365 Ark. 255, 227 S.W.3d 924 (2006). Rankin timely filed his petition for federal habeas corpus relief.

3. Factual Background.

At the time of the murders, Rankin was nineteen years old. He knew the victims. His brother, Rodney Rankin, and Zena previously lived together, and they had two children. Rankin met Zena's sister, Sonyae Reynolds, through his brother. Their dating relationship was erratic and tumultuous. Rankin twice became jealous of Sonyae's other relationships and hit her.

In the early morning hours of December 27, 1994, the Halfords were at their Pine Bluff apartment. Ernestine's daughters-Sonyae and Zena-and Zena's two small children were also there. Zena and her children were in the living room; the Halfords and Sonyae were asleep in their bedrooms. When Sonyae heard the front door bust open, she hid in her bedroom closet. She heard six gunshots. The intruder opened Sonyae's bedroom door “a little” and then ran out of the apartment. Trial Record 1050. After waiting a few minutes, Sonyae left her bedroom and found the slain bodies of her mother, stepfather, and sister. Each died from a contact gunshot wound to the head. Nathaniel was shot twice in the head, and Ernestine was also shot in the arm. Zena's children were unharmed.

Sonyae told the 911 operator that she could not identify the killer. Responding officers found the Halfords' front door kicked in. The door frame was broken, and there was a shoeprint on the front-door Christmas decoration. Sonyae told the investigator that she glimpsed one intruder through her bedroom doorway, but that he was too short to be Rankin. She said the intruder was wearing a black jacket with gray stripes and writing on the back, and blue Dickie pants.

At the time of the murders, Sonyae and Rankin were no longer together. She believed Rankin had also been in the apartment because he recently threatened her and her family. She was aware a witness saw a “tall boy” running between the apartment buildings; she thought that person was Rankin, who is over six feet tall. Trial Record 1092. Sonyae directed investigators to the home of Rankin's mother, Elaine Trimble. Rankin and Rodney lived there, too. When investigators arrived, Rankin and his mother were at home. Rankin answered the door. He had been laying on the living room couch. With Trimble's consent, investigators searched her home and found a black and gray Starter jacket[1] (with a white “Sox” emblem on the back) behind a cattycorner chest-of-drawers in Rankin's bedroom. They also seized two pairs of shoes-a pair of black athletic shoes lying next to the living room couch, and a pair of navy Reebok athletic shoes found underneath the couch. After Trimble stopped the search, investigators arrested Rankin and transported him to the Pine Bluff police station. With a search warrant, investigators returned to the home and found six pairs of dark-colored jeans behind Rankin's chest-of-drawers.

Rankin initially denied committing the murders. While he was being questioned, investigators found the murder weapon-a nine-millimeter Hi-Point pistol-in a wooded area behind the apartment complex where the Halfords lived. After Rankin was shown the pistol, he gave an audio-recorded statement and admitted that he killed Zena and the Halfords. He told investigators that he went alone to the Halfords' apartment. Investigators discovered the pistol was stolen during a recent burglary of Ernest Demmings' home. Returning to Trimble's house, investigators seized a VCR and CDs taken during the same burglary.

Sonyae's testimony was different than her police interview. She testified that she knew the killer was Rankin because, when he opened her bedroom door that night, she recognized his black and gray Starter jacket and his navy and white Reeboks. She said that he was wearing jeans. Sonyae identified the seized jacket and shoes as those worn by Rankin. The Halfords' neighbor, Sharon Carter, testified that, on the night of the murders, she heard gunshots and looked out her window. She said that she saw a man, running towards the woods and shooting in the air. She described the man as tall; and wearing a dark Starter jacket, black athletic shoes, a stocking cap, and dark jeans. She did not see the man's face or any writing on the jacket.

Rankin also testified at trial. He admitted the seized Starter jacket belonged to him, and he said that he had a pair of Reeboks. But he said that he was not wearing either on the night of the murders. He told the jury that he put the jacket and jeans behind his chest-of-drawers. He said that his room did not have a place for dirty clothes, and that he planned to take them to the cleaners. Rankin testified that he kept his clean clothes in his brother's closet because his bedroom did not have one. Rankin said that he was wearing a brown coat and black-and-white Fila shoes on the night of the murders. He said that he hung the brown coat in his brother's closet, and that he wore the Filas to the police station after he was arrested. He testified a friend, Jeremy Langrell, brought the VCR to his mother's house and was trying to sell it. He told the jury that he confessed to the murders only because he was concerned that his mother and brother were being arrested. He said his mother “had already been through a lot.” Trial Record 1445. He said that Rodney was angry about the break-up with Zena, and that he was “smoking crack . . . and upset” and “acting funny.” Trial Record 1447. Rankin testified the investigators gave him details about the murder before recording his statement. He said that he often responded to their yes-no questions with “I don't know” because he did not know the answers.

4. Procedural History.

Early on, this Court[2] stayed the federal proceedings and held the case in abeyance while Rankin pursued relief on unexhausted claims in state court. Doc. No. 62. The Eighth Circuit dismissed an appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction. Rankin v. Norris, 396 Fed.Appx. 325 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). During the stay of federal proceedings, the Court permitted Rankin to temporarily reopen the habeas case to preserve the testimony of Pastor Augustine Bailey, an ordained minister and counselor at the Evangelical Outreach Church in Pine Bluff, who was in failing health. The Court ordered Rankin to make the deposition part of the habeas record. Doc. No. 80. Pastor Bailey had counseled Elaine Trimble and Rodney. She stated in her deposition that Rodney twice confessed to her that he killed the victims. Doc. No. 82-2.

In state court, Rankin sought a recall of the mandate in his Rule 37 proceeding[3] based on three arguments: (1) actual innocence of capital murder; (2) ineligibility for the death penalty due to intellectual disability; and (3) defective Rule 37 proceedings due to incompetent and unqualified counsel, and judicial bias. In the same paper, Rankin argued that he was entitled to seek coram-nobis relief in circuit court for three reasons: (1) He is actually innocent based on a third-party confession, (2) he was incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability and mental illness, and (3) the prosecutor withheld material evidence at trial. Doc. No. 103-1. Rankin attached to the motion a 659-page Appendix with supporting documents. Doc. No. 104-1 through 104-6. In a per curiam order, the Arkansas Supreme Court summarily denied the motion. Doc. No. 105-1 at 17; Rankin v. State, No. CR-96-1025 (Ark. May 12, 2011).

After returning to federal court, Rankin filed an amended habeas petition and a supplemental memorandum. Doc. Nos. 115, 129. He also filed supplemental authority. Doc. Nos. 169, 174. In these papers Rankin continues to argue that he is innocent, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT