State v. Dunlap
Decision Date | 27 August 2013 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 32773/37270,2013 Opinion No. 95 |
Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY ALAN DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant. TIMOTHY ALAN DUNLAP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Stephen Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Caribou County. Hon. Don L. Harding, District Judge.
The judgment imposing the death sentence is affirmed. The district court's summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further post-conviction relief proceedings.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Shannon Romero argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Lamont Anderson argued.
This matter is a consolidated appeal from the sentence of death imposed upon Timothy A. Dunlap after he pled guilty to first-degree murder and from the district court's summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Dunlap alleges numerous errors by the district court during the jury sentencing proceedings, and he advances several claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel. Additionally, the parties ask this Court to determine whether the mandatory review of death sentences governed by Idaho Code § 19-2827 requires the Court to consider errors that were not preserved by objection at trial or whether a defendant must demonstrate fundamental error before those errors may be considered. Dunlap asks this Court to set aside his sentence and remand for resentencing or, in the alternative, to vacate the order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment imposing the death sentence. We affirm the district court's summary dismissal of Dunlap's petition for post-conviction relief in part, vacate in part, and remand for further post-conviction relief proceedings.
This appeal deals solely with issues related to Dunlap's sentencing. We set forth the factual and procedural background leading to the jury-imposed sentence in a previous appeal:
Dunlap v. State, 141 Idaho 50, 55-56, 106 P.3d 376, 381-82 (2004) (Dunlap III) (footnote omitted). In Dunlap III, this Court upheld the district court's denial of Dunlap's petition for post-conviction relief and the validity of his guilty plea. Id. at 66, 106 P.3d at 392. However, we also recognized that in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the Supreme Court of the United States held that death sentences must be imposed by a jury, not a judge, and remanded the case for resentencing by a jury. Id.
The resentencing proceedings began with jury selection on February 6, 2006. The sentencing hearing before the jury was conducted between February 13 and February 22, 2006. Following the presentation of evidence, the jurors were sequestered until their verdict was returned. The jury found that the State proved three statutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically: (1) by the murder, or circumstances surrounding its commission, the defendant exhibited utter disregard for human life (I.C. § 19-2515(9)(f)) (the utter disregard aggravator); (2) the murder was committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, kidnapping or mayhem and the defendant had the specific intent to cause the death of a human being (I.C. § 19-2515(9)(g)) (the specific intent aggravator); and (3) thedefendant, by prior conduct or conduct in the commission of the murder at hand, has exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society (I.C. § 19-2515(9)(h))1 (the propensity aggravator). The jury further found that all the mitigating evidence, weighed against each aggravator, was not sufficiently compelling to make imposition of the death penalty unjust. In accordance with the verdict, the district court entered a judgment sentencing Dunlap to death. On May 27, 2008, Dunlap filed his petition for post-conviction relief. Dunlap unsuccessfully moved to disqualify Judge Harding from the post-conviction case. The State moved for summary dismissal of the petition, which the district court granted on November 24, 2009. In this consolidated appeal, Dunlap's challenges both the judgment and the summary dismissal of his claims for post-conviction relief.
After the parties' initial briefing was complete, this Court granted the State's request to submit supplemental briefing in response to Dunlap's Reply Brief, in which he argued that Idaho Code § 19-2827 requires this Court to review death sentences for error even if the claimed errors were not raised before the district court. This becomes a threshold issue because twelve of the sixteen sentencing-phase errors Dunlap now advances were not raised during the sentencing proceedings and this Court generally will not consider issues that were not raised at trial unless the defendant demonstrates fundamental error, i.e., "that one of his unwaived constitutional rights was plainly violated." State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 226, 245 P.3d 961, 978 (2010). This issue is considered first because its resolution determines which of Dunlap's other claims will be considered.
Threshold issue: mandatory sentence review under Idaho Code § 19-2827
1. Whether Idaho Code § 19-2827 requires this Court to review every sentencing error alleged by a capital defendant, even if the error was not raised before the district court, without first applying the fundamental error standard this Court announced in Perry.
Direct appeal issues raised for the first time on appeal
To continue reading
Request your trial