State v. Creech
| Decision Date | 19 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | 23482,Nos. 22006,s. 22006 |
| Citation | 966 P.2d 1,132 Idaho 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. Boise, December 1997 Term |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Alan E. Trimming, Ada County Public Defender; August H. Cahill, Jr., Deputy Ada
County Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. August H. Cahill, Jr. argued.
Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Michaelina B. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Michaelina B. Murphy argued.
This is an appeal from a death sentence imposed upon appellant Thomas Eugene Creech (Creech) entered on April 17, 1995, after his plea of guilty to first degree murder, and an appeal from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. A portion of this case is before the Court for mandatory review pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-2827. We affirm.
On May 13, 1981, while serving a life sentence in the Idaho State Correctional Institution for two counts of first degree murder, Creech killed fellow inmate David Dale Jensen (Jensen). On the day of his death, Jensen made two attacks on Creech. In the first, Jensen attacked Creech with a battery-filled sock. Creech disarmed Jensen. Jensen later attacked Creech with a toothbrush with a razor blade attached to it. Upon this second attack, Creech hit Jensen with the battery-filled sock. The blows to Jensen's head killed him. Part of Jensen's brain had been removed prior to his incarceration, and he had a plastic plate in his skull.
Creech originally pled not guilty to the first degree murder charge, but in late August 1981, Creech requested that he be allowed to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. On August 28, 1981, Creech was present in court. The district judge interrogated Creech and Creech made clear his wish to plead guilty against the advice of his counsel, Rolf Kehne (Kehne). Kehne requested a continuance for a week which was denied. Kehne then requested that he be allowed to withdraw from representing Creech which was also denied. The district court accepted Creech's plea of guilty.
A sentencing hearing was held in January 1982, and the district court thereafter issued its findings sentencing Creech to death. However, because Creech was not present at sentencing, this Court issued an order vacating the sentence and remanding the case to the district court so that the sentence could be imposed in open court with Creech and his counsel present. Pursuant to that order, on March 17, 1983, the district court imposed the death penalty on Creech in the presence of Creech and his counsel. Creech appealed to this Court raising numerous issues. We affirmed Creech=s conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 670 P.2d 463 (1983).
On May 19, 1983, Creech filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to I.C.R. 33(c). Creech raised numerous issues regarding defects in his guilty plea. In January 1984, the district court issued an order stating that the Supreme Court had returned and remitted the case back to the district court, ordered that all post-conviction relief proceedings and all other post-trial motions be filed by February 6, 1984, and that any matters not filed by that date would be deemed waived. Within the time prescribed, Creech renewed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Creech cited nine reasons as supportive of his motion to withdraw the plea. No other post-conviction petitions or issues were filed. On February 27, 1984, testimony was heard on that motion. This Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion in State v. Creech, 109 Idaho 592, 710 P.2d 502 (1985). The Court held that the record was sufficient to find that allowing the guilty plea to stand would not be manifestly unjust. Id. at 597, 710 P.2d at 507.
Creech next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Relief was denied on June 18, 1986. Creech appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit raising numerous issues. The Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court=s denial of Creech's petition on three grounds: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow Creech to present new mitigating evidence at his resentencing hearing on March 17, 1983, which would have pertained The State of Idaho then appealed to the United States Supreme Court which granted certiorari, limited to the question whether the "utter disregard" aggravating factor, as interpreted by the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981), is unconstitutionally vague. Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463, 113 S.Ct. 1534, 123 L.Ed.2d 188 (1993). The Supreme Court held that the "utter disregard" circumstance, as defined in Osborn, on its face meets constitutional requirements. 507 U.S. at 478, 113 S.Ct. 1534. The Court thus reversed, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. The Court noted that Creech was entitled to resentencing by the state district court pursuant to the Court of Appeals' ruling that the trial judge improperly refused to allow Creech to present new mitigating evidence when he was resentenced in open court. Id. at 478-79, 113 S.Ct. 1534.
to Creech's good behavior and peaceful adjustment between the time of his first sentencing in January 1982 and his resentencing in March 1983; (2) at Creech's sentencing hearing, the trial court found two aggravating circumstances without making a required finding beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) one of the aggravating circumstances applied by the trial court, that Creech demonstrated an "utter disregard for human life," is unconstitutionally vague. Creech v. Arave, 947 F.2d 873, 881-85 (9th Cir.1991).
On April 14, 1993, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho entered an Order on Remand to the Idaho Supreme Court. A resentencing hearing was scheduled before the state district court for December 27, 1993. However, pursuant to a stipulation, the sentencing hearing was continued to March 7, 1994, because Creech could not be fully prepared by the December 27th date. The sentencing hearing was later vacated and rescheduled an additional five times before commencing on March 13, 1995.
On April 21, 1994, Creech renewed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea raising some of the same issues he had raised previously, and raising some new grounds. The district court denied Creech's motion, ruling that whether all these issues had been ruled on by the district court or not, the motion to withdraw Creech's guilty plea was res judicata since it had previously been ruled on by the district court and the Idaho Supreme Court.
In August 1994, counsel for Creech requested that an updated presentence report be prepared, which the district court allowed. In March 1995, Creech moved to strike portions of the presentence investigation report, but the district court denied the motion. The district court thereafter entered its findings and imposed the death penalty under I.C. § 19-2515. On May 9, 1995, Creech then filed his petition for post-conviction relief which the district court denied.
Creech appeals from both his conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, and from the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. On December 16, 1996, this Court issued an order consolidating these appeals, Supreme Court Docket Nos. 22006 and 23482. A death warrant was issued on January 2, 1997, but was stayed pending this consolidated appeal.
A. Whether the district court committed reversible error by changing its findings in aggravation.
B. Whether the district court committed reversible error by considering evidence of previous hearings.
C. Whether the district court committed reversible error by denying Creech's motion to strike portions of the presentence investigation report.
D. Whether the district court erred in weighing the unconstitutionally vague circumstance propensity to murder, and in finding that Creech "by prior conduct and by conduct in the commission of the murders at hand has exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society."
E. Whether the "utter disregard" aggravating circumstance relied upon by the district court is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
F. Whether the district court's reliance on elements of the offense as statutory aggravating circumstances violated Creech's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
G. Whether the district court erroneously considered and weighed non-statutory aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances.
H. Whether Creech is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the Idaho capital sentencing scheme unconstitutionally provides a mandatory sentencing formula violative of the Eighth Amendment.
I. Whether Idaho's death penalty scheme violates the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by lack of jury participation.
J. Whether the district court's refusal to consider Creech's reduced capacity to conform his conduct to law due to mental defect and disease requires reversal.
K. Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and Creech.
A. The District Court Did Not Commit Reversible Error By Changing A Mitigating Circumstance To An Aggravating Circumstance In Its Findings At Creech's 1995 Resentencing.
Creech argues that the district court committed reversible error by significantly changing its findings in support of the death sentence. In its 1982 findings, the district court found that as a mitigating factor, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hall
...at 369–70, 670 P.2d at 470–71. Subsequent to this decision, we have reiterated this holding on five occasions. See State v. Creech , 132 Idaho 1, 14, 966 P.2d 1, 14 (1998) ("[W]e have already held and reaffirm our holding that it was not error for the district court to weigh these non-statu......
-
State v. Hall, Docket Nos. 31528
...Idaho at 369–70, 670 P.2d at 470–71. Subsequent to this decision, we have reiterated this holding on five occasions. See State v. Creech , 132 Idaho 1, 14, 966 P.2d 1, 14 (1998) ("[W]e have already held and reaffirm our holding that it was not error for the district court to weigh these non......
-
Creech v. Richardson
...the trial court's judgment with his appeal from the denial of PCR relief, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. State v. Creech ("Creech V "), 132 Idaho 1, 966 P.2d 1, 23 (1998).G. Second Federal Habeas ProceedingsCreech timely filed a second § 2254 habeas petition on January 20, 2000. Proceedi......
-
Pizzuto v. Tewalt
...trial court resentenced Creech to death, and the death sentence was upheld by the Idaho Supreme Court in 1998. See State v. Creech , 132 Idaho 1, 966 P.2d 1, 6, 23 (1998).Both Pizzuto and Creech are close to exhausting their post-conviction appeals. On February 3, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Co......