TOWERY ET AL.

v.

ARIZONA

Citator

Cited By

• Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
  …f the basic right to a jury trial [*843] does not apply retroactively, then a right to a jury determination of aggravating circumstances that function essentially as elements of a greater offense also does not apply retroactively”), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 44, 156 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003). Therefore, Apprendi does not implicate core values to the degree necessary to its retroactive application. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Summerlin, 124 S.Ct. at 2519, further supports our conclusion.…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2004)
  …th Circuits, as well as four state supreme courts, have held that Ring does not apply retroactively. See Turner, 339 F. 3d at 1284; Lambert v. McBride, 365 F. 3d 557 (7th Cir.2004); State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 64 P. 3d 828, 836, cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 44, 156 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003); Head v. Hill, 277 Ga. 255, 587 S.E. 2d 613, 619 (2003); State v. Lotter, 266 [*941] Neb. 245, 664 N.W. 2d 892, 908 (2003), petition for cert. filed, No. 03-7361 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 8…
• Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004)
  …structure of Arizona murder law,” 341 F. 3d, at 1105, is particularly remarkable in the face of the Arizona Supreme Court’s previous conclusion to the contrary. See State v. [*355] Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 390-391, 64 P. 3d 828, 832-833, cert. dism’d, 539 U. S. 986 (2003).5 B Respondent argues in the alternative that Ring falls under the retroactivity exception for “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Saffle, 494 U. S., at 49…