Douglas Edward Gretzler v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections

Ninth Circuit

Douglas Edward Gretzler v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections

146 F.3d 675, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6026, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4383, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, 1998 WL 296904

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1998

Docket98-80394, 98-99019

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 146 F.3d 675 (Douglas Edward Gretzler v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglas Edward Gretzler v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, 146 F.3d 675, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6026, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4383, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, 1998 WL 296904 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

Order; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

Douglas Edward Gretzler seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his second petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the denial of his application for stay of his execution scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 1998. We grant his motion for a Certificate of Appealability and deny the remaining motions as moot. The facts and procedural background are set forth in our disposition of the first petition. See Gretzler v. Stewart, 112 F.3d 992, (9th Cir.1997).

Gretzler here claims that his execution would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he has been on death row since 1975 and his execution would no longer serve any deterrent or retributive purpose. His claim is similar to the one we rejected in Ceja v. Stewart, 134 F.3d 1368 (9th Cir.1998), as barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). In addition, Gretzler’s prior § 2254 petition was amended [676]*676in 1992. Gretzler could have included this claim in that petition, when he had already been on death row 17 years. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998) (recognizing exception to AEDPA for claim that could not have been adjudicated in prior habeas petition). See also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045, 115 S.Ct. 1421, 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting from denial of certio-rari) where petitioner had been on death row 17 years. Although Gretzler contends that his claim was not ripe until his death warrant was signed, his case is unlike Martinez-Villareal. There the competency claim could not have been evaluated until execution was imminent. Here, Gretzler challenges his death sentence in light of the years on death row he has already served.

The district court’s order dismissing the petition and denying the stay of execution is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

Douglas Edward Gretzler seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his second petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the denial of his application for stay of his execution scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 1998. We grant his motion for a Certificate of Appealability and deny the remaining motions as moot. The facts and procedural background are set forth in our disposition of the first petition. See Gretzler v. Stewart, 112 F.3d 992, (9th Cir.1997).

Gretzler here claims that his execution would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he has been on death row since 1975 and his execution would no longer serve any deterrent or retributive purpose. His claim is similar to the one we rejected in Ceja v. Stewart, 134 F.3d 1368 (9th Cir.1998), as barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). In addition, Gretzler’s prior § 2254 petition was amended [676]*676in 1992. Gretzler could have included this claim in that petition, when he had already been on death row 17 years. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998) (recognizing exception to AEDPA for claim that could not have been adjudicated in prior habeas petition). See also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045, 115 S.Ct. 1421, 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting from denial of certio-rari) where petitioner had been on death row 17 years. Although Gretzler contends that his claim was not ripe until his death warrant was signed, his case is unlike Martinez-Villareal. There the competency claim could not have been evaluated until execution was imminent. Here, Gretzler challenges his death sentence in light of the years on death row he has already served.

The district court’s order dismissing the petition and denying the stay of execution is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F.3d 675, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6026, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4383, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, 1998 WL 296904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-edward-gretzler-v-terry-l-stewart-director-of-the-arizona-ca9-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack