Ayers vs. Belmontes

Belmontes, who was sentenced to death for first degree murder, sued the prison warden for a writ of habeas corpus. While most capital cases do consider mitigating circumstances, Belmontes felt he was deprived of this consideration and the sentence of death should be illegal according to the 8th and 14th amendment because the court failed to consider his future behavior in prison as a mitigating behavior. In short, he did not think he deserved the death penalty because of his future behavior in prison.

The writ of habeas corpus was denied to Belmontes, because while the court does consider mitigating circumstances usually, there must be evidence to consider these factors and they do not concern the future. Belmontes was unable to provide evidence with regard to his future behavior in prison, and therefore, it was decided that this should not be a factor when deciding the case and the sentence.

The crux of the case was the interpretation of factor k which applies to "any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime." Belmontes was hoping for leniency, such as that shown in Brown vs. Payton, in which a defendant's religious conversion was considered a mitigating factor when sentencing him for the crime.

According to the California 9th circuit, the Payton case did not apply because it applied the more deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which came after Belmontes' federal appeal.

Click here to learn more about Debra Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg