# State v. Atwood

> Arizona Supreme Court · July 10, 1992 · 171 Ariz. 576

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550751

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frank Jarvis ATWOOD, Appellant
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 10, 1992
- **Citations:** 171 Ariz. 576; 832 P.2d 593
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Feldman
- **Judges:** Feldman, Corcoran, Moeller, Cameron, Gordon
- **Cited by:** 311 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550751

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the court could not determine whether an identifiable underrepresentation is the result of systematic exclusion because the defendant did not provide information 5 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court that a specific group was systematically excluded
- finding that even where the defendant had changed his goals and behavior in prison, that was not enough to find that the defendant was a model prisoner and was therefore not a mitigating circumstance
- finding no error when the trial court determined that the witnesses’ identification of defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances
- holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim
- finding meritless the defendant’s argument that facts of prior conviction were mitigating after reviewing record of that prior conviction

## Opinion text

FELDMAN, Chief Justice, specially concurring:
In cases imposing the death penalty, we conduct a proportionality review to determine whether the death sentence is “excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 196 , 560 P.2d 41, 51 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977).
We have reviewed cases involving comparable crimes, and conclude that Defendant’s sentence is not disproportiopate to the sentences imposed in those cases. See, e.g., State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232 , 762 P.2d 519 (1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 (1989); State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382 , 724 P.2d 1 (1986); State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212 , 700 P.2d 1312 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1094 , 105 S.Ct. 2169 , 85 L.Ed.2d 525 (1985).
JAMES DUKE CAMERON and FRANK X. GORDON, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550751. Public record. Not legal advice.