Singleton v. Lockhart
Decision Date | 28 August 1986 |
Docket Number | No. PB-C-82-165.,PB-C-82-165. |
Citation | 653 F. Supp. 1114 |
Parties | Charles Laverne SINGLETON, Petitioner, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner.
Jack Gillean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.
On October 30, 1979, petitioner was sentenced to death by electrocution for capital felony murder, and life imprisonment for aggravated robbery. The conviction and death sentence for capital murder were affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, but the aggravated robbery conviction and sentence were vacated on double jeopardy grounds. Singleton v. State, 274 Ark. 126, 623 S.W.2d 180 (1981). Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. Petitioner then sought permission to proceed under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Permission was denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court and an execution date was set for June 4, 1982. The Arkansas Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for a stay of execution. On June 1, 1982, this Court granted petitioner a stay of execution and petitioner's first petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition. The State of Arkansas responded. An evidentiary hearing was held to resolve the factual issues.
The facts of the case were stated by the Arkansas Supreme Court, 274 Ark. at 128-29, 623 S.W.2d 180, as follows:
Petitioner's grounds for the writ are briefly summarized as follows:
1. Petitioner was denied a jury panel of a cross-section of the community because the jury panel was selected in a racially discriminatory manner.
2. Petitioner was denied a jury of a cross-section of the community because of the manner in which potential jurors were summoned.
3. The jury was "death qualified."
4. The trial court failed to grant petitioner's motion for a change of venue.
5. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel:
a. Failed to challenge certain veniremen for cause;
b. Failed to conduct an adequate voir dire re challenges for cause;
c. Wrongly assented to the exclusion of a potential juror under Witherspoon who should not have been excluded;
d. Failed to make an adequate appellate record for review of voir dire;
e. Did not rehabilitate, for Witherspoon purposes, potential jurors excluded under that case.
6. Petitioner's rights at the guilt phase of trial were violated by:
a. The proposition of inconsistent defenses;
b. Failure to seek additional psychiatric examination;
c. The admission of purported dying declarations of the victim;
d. Admission of certain photographs of the deceased.
7. Petitioner's arrest and the introduction of certain evidence seized from him violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
8. The evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support a conviction.
9. The Arkansas statutory scheme is void for vagueness and violative of the Constitution because of the overlapping definitions of capital and first degree murder.
10. The Arkansas statutory scheme is impermissibly vague in its element of "extreme indifference to the value of human life."
11. Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated at the penalty phase of the trial by:
a. Counsel's failure to prepare or present evidence in mitigation;
b. Counsel's making an inadequate and improper closing argument;
c. The jury's ignoring evidence of mitigating circumstances;
d. The vagueness of the definition of the term "pecuniary gain."
e. The failure to comply with procedural requisites.
12. The death penalty in this case violates the Constitution in that:
a. It was imposed despite the absence of valid and non-vague aggravating circumstances in that only one aggravating circumstance was argued by the prosecution;
b. The sentence was not in proportion to other death sentences. More aggravating circumstances were involved in other cases where death sentences were not given;
13. The death penalty itself is unconstitutional.
14. Petitioner is not mentally competent to be executed and to execute him would violate the Constitution under these circumstances.
Most of the questions presented by Mr. Singleton's petition for habeas corpus are questions of law based upon an established record. The hearing was devoted principally to issues relating to Mr. Wellenberger's effectiveness as Mr. Singleton's attorney and with respect to the manner in which the jurors were originally placed on the list of 800 and, later, chosen to serve on the Singleton panel.
Apparently, Mr. Singleton is not seriously challenging Mr. Wellenberger's effectiveness during the actual trial of his guilt or innocence. He does, however, raise questions about his effectiveness in challenging the jury selection system, in voir diring the jury, and in the handling of the penalty phase of the trial.
The standard governing the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was recently articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in which the United States Supreme Court held:
With respect to the element of "prejudice," the Court had the following to say, 104 S.Ct. 2067-2068:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertson v. State
...Arkansas deserves an answer. Habeas relief has been granted in Simmons v. Lockhart, 856 F.2d 1144 (8th Cir.1988), and Singleton v. Lockhart, 653 F.Supp. 1114 (E.D.Ark.1986). Two cases merit special mention. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's decisions in Ruiz and Va......
-
State v. Biegenwald
...667 F.2d 1253, 1264-65 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1055, 103 S.Ct. 473, 74 L.Ed.2d 621 (1982); cf. Singleton v. Lockhart, 653 F.Supp. 1114, 1143 (E.D.Ark.1986) (where jury's reliance on sole aggravating circumstance was invalidated, state could not seek the death penalty despite poss......
-
Singleton v. Norris
...and thus ineligible for execution under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Singleton v. Lockhart, 653 F.Supp. 1114, 1116 (E.D.Ark. 1986). The district court sustained the conviction but reversed the sentence of death, holding that the pecuniary gain agg......
-
Singleton v. Lockhart, s. 86-2263
...affirmed Singleton's conviction for capital murder, but vacated his death sentence in accordance with Collins. See Singleton v. Lockhart, 653 F.Supp. 1114, 1117 (E.D.Ark.1986). On appeal, Singleton raises two major issues: (1) he was denied his constitutional right to a jury selected from a......
-
Singleton v. Norris: the Eighth Circuit Maneuvered Around the Constitution by Forcibly Medicating Insane Prisoners to Create an Artificial Competence for Purposes of Execution
...incompetence argument on Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).Id. 30. Singleton, 319 F.3d at 1021. See also Singleton v. Lockhart, 653 F. Supp. 1114, 1135, 1138 (E.D. Ark. 1986). 31. Singleton, 319 F.3d at 1021. 32. Singleton v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1395, 1397 (8th Cir. 1989). 33. Singleto......