Jose Jesus Ceja

Case overview

Jose Jesus Ceja was executed by lethal injection in Arizona on January 21, 1998. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the drug related murders of Linda and Randy Leon in 1974.

Ceja went to the home of Randy and Linda Leon in Phoenix with the intent to steal a large shipment of marijuana. When he entered, he shot Linda twice in the chest. Ceja dragged Linda’s body from the living room to the bedroom, where he shot her at least four more times in the head at close range.

When Randy returned home, Ceja shot him four times with Randy’s own gun, which Ceja had removed from a drawer in the house. Ceja also loaded a suitcase he had brought with him with 12 kilos of marijuana. He removed the receiver from the phone and turned on the television to create an appearance that someone was home.

Ceja later attended the funeral of the victims, helped move furniture, and offered to help police find the murderer.

Timeline

• June 30, 1974 — Ceja went to the home of Randy and Linda Leon in Phoenix intending to steal marijuana; he shot Linda twice in the chest, dragged her to the bedroom, and shot her at least four more times in the head at close range; when Randy arrived, Ceja shot him four times with his own gun; Ceja loaded a suitcase with 12 kilos of marijuana, removed the receiver from the phone, and turned on the television.
• November 8, 1974 — Start of the first trial.
• November 19, 1974 — Verdict in the first trial.
• December 19, 1974 — Sentencing in the first trial.
• May 12, 1976 — Start of the second trial.
• May 18, 1976 — Verdict in the second trial.
• June 25, 1976 — Sentencing in the second trial.
• 1979 — Resentencing.
• July 17, 1979 — Resentencing.
• May 5, 1994 — The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Arizona.
• May 15, 1995 — Argued and submitted in the federal appeal.
• Aug. 3, 1995 — Submission deferred in the federal appeal.
• May 22, 1996 — Resubmitted in the federal appeal; the stay of appeal had previously been lifted on May 22, 1996.
• Decided Oct. 8, 1996 — The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• January 21, 1998 — Ceja was executed by lethal injection in Arizona.

The offence

Ceja committed drug related murders of Linda and Randy Leon during a theft of marijuana. He brought a suitcase, loaded it with 12 kilos of marijuana, removed the receiver from the phone, and turned on the television to create an appearance that someone was home.

Victims

• Linda Leon — shot twice in the chest; her body was dragged from the living room to the bedroom; Ceja shot her at least four more times in the head at close range.
• Randy Leon — shot four times with his own gun when he arrived home.

Conflicting descriptions and Ceja’s statements

Ceja disputed the description of the crime offered by the state’s attorneys. The state argued that he reloaded to fire more shots into Linda Leon and kicked Randy Leon in the head. Ceja said that "there was never any reloading. I don't know where that came from." Ceja also said that "I don't ever recall saying that. I was crying, and I was real distraught, but I don't recall saying that."

Ceja offered an additional description of the crime during clemency proceedings, saying: "it was an argument that just got very out of hand."

Investigation and evidence

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed Ceja’s conviction and sentence in 1976, primarily because of hearsay problems with ballistics evidence.

At sentencing-related proceedings, the Arizona courts found that Ceja shot Linda six times, hitting her four times in the head and twice in the chest, and shot Randy four times, hitting him once in the chest, once in the back, once in the shoulder, and once in the arm. The Arizona courts also found that Ceja kicked Randy in the head as Randy lay dead or dying on the floor.

The federal appellate discussion described evidence concerning multiple gunshot wounds. At trial, testimony concerning the multiple gunshot wounds was described as uncontradicted. The state’s pathologist testified (1) that each of the six shots to Linda’s head and chest could have killed her and (2) either the shot to Randy’s back or the shot to his chest could have killed him.

At the sentencing hearing, Detective Ysasi testified that he "did not know why [Ceja] kicked [Randy] in the head." A post-sentencing affidavit described a medical examiner stating that he could not determine "with any degree of medical certainty that [the] abrasions [on Randy's face] were caused by a kick." The same discussion described the medical examiner’s observation that the abrasions were "consistent with a fall to the floor."

Trial

First trial (1974)

• Presiding Judge: C. Kimball Rose
• Prosecutors: Joseph Shaw
• Start of Trial: November 8, 1974
• Verdict: November 19, 1974
• Sentencing: December 19, 1974

Ceja was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for drug related murders of Linda and Randy Leon.

Second trial (retrial, 1976)

• Presiding Judge: A. Melvin McDonald
• Prosecutors: Peter Whitmer (retrial)
• Start of Trial: May 12, 1976
• Verdict: May 18, 1976
• Sentencing: June 25, 1976

Ceja was retried, convicted, and again sentenced to death upon the finding of two statutory aggravating factors.

Sentencing

Aggravating circumstances and mitigation

Aggravating Circumstances: Especially heinous/cruel/depraved. Mitigating Circumstances: None sufficient to call for leniency.

Statutory aggravating factor (F)(6)

Ceja’s death sentence was premised on statutory aggravating circumstance (F)(6): "The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) (formerly A.R.S. § 13-454(E)(6)).

After the Supreme Court decided Lockett v. Ohio in 1978, the Arizona Supreme Court ordered resentencing of all death row inmates.

After a third aggravation and mitigation hearing conducted in 1979, Ceja was again sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed.

Appeals and collateral proceedings

Published opinions

• State v. Ceja, 113 Ariz. 39, 546 P.2d 6 (1976).
• State v. Ceja, 115 Ariz. 413, 565 P.2d 1274 (1977).
• State v. Ceja, 126 Ariz. 35, 612 P.2d 491 (1980).

Federal habeas corpus proceedings

Ceja filed a habeas petition in federal court. It was described as his first in federal court. The district court proceedings were stayed for some time while Ceja returned to state court for a second Rule 32 proceeding. On May 5, 1994, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Arizona. Ceja’s appeal was timely.

In the federal appellate proceedings, Ceja appealed the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, had jurisdiction and reviewed the denial.

The appellate discussion described:

• Ceja raised forty-one claims in his petition.
• The district court rejected on the merits claims 9, 12, 15-30, 32, and 33.
• The district court rejected on the basis of procedural default claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 31, and 34-41.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed and held: "When the clerk of this court issues the mandate in this case, the stay of execution pending appeal shall be of no further force and effect." The decision ended with "AFFIRMED."

Summary of key appellate issues described in the record

Constitutional challenge to the (F)(6) factor (Claim 16)

The federal discussion described a dispute over whether the Arizona courts provided a constitutionally sufficient narrowing construction for (F)(6). While Ceja argued the narrowing construction occurred only later, the appellate court described the Arizona Supreme Court’s use of an additional violence concept and other narrowing principles, including discussion of State v. Gretzler.

The discussion included a description that the Arizona Supreme Court explained that a heinous and depraved finding could be predicated on " 'additional violence[ ] over and above that which was necessary to carry out the defendant's criminal intent.' "

The appellate discussion also quoted reasoning from Ceja’s earlier Arizona Supreme Court decision: that Ceja’s " 'conduct in continuing his barrage of violence, inflicting wounds and abusing his victims, beyond the point necessary to fulfill his plan to steal, beyond even the point necessary to kill' " warranted (F)(6) aggravation.

Sufficiency of admissible evidence supporting aggravation finding (Claims 12 and 13)

The appellate discussion addressed whether a rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ceja inflicted additional violence and repeatedly kicked Randy Leon in the head. The discussion referenced the uncontradicted testimony concerning gunshot wounds and the testimony and medical examiner statement concerning the kick.

Burden of proof for aggravating factors (Claim 15)

The federal discussion addressed the standard of proof for aggravating circumstances and described Arizona’s construal of its death penalty statute to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in State v. Jordan. It concluded the Arizona courts found (F)(6) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mitigating evidence review (Claims 18-24)

The federal discussion described arguments that the Arizona courts discounted mitigating evidence and failed to weigh mitigating circumstances properly. It described that the sentencing court had concluded "there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency" (emphasis added).

Proportionality review (Claim 28)

The appellate discussion addressed Ceja’s contention that the Arizona Supreme Court violated equal protection and due process by failing to conduct proportionality review. The Ninth Circuit discussion stated there was no federal right to proportionality review and addressed state-created liberty interest questions.

Ineffective assistance of counsel (Claims 10, 37, 39)

The federal discussion addressed Ceja’s ineffective assistance arguments and applied Strickland’s standard, concluding he could not show prejudice.

Dissenting opinion (Fletcher)

Judge FARRIS wrote the opinion; Judge FLETCHER wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

The dissent stated:

• "I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of Ceja's sentence."
• "I would hold that the Arizona courts' failure to find the F(6) aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt was constitutional error that had a substantial and injurious effect on the sentence."
• The dissent argued that federal review should address whether aggravating factors were found beyond a reasonable doubt and described disagreement with presumptions.

The dissent also included statements about evidence and narrowing, and would have granted habeas relief to set aside the death sentence.

Cleary hearing and last statements

Ceja’s clemency hearing was described as held at the prison complex in Florence, southeast of Phoenix, and lasted 5 hours. It included testimony from Ceja’s wife, who wanted him killed, and the judge who twice sentenced him to death, asking that his life be spared.

Ceja watched the proceedings, handcuffed and seated, behind a thick pane of plexiglass. Ceja said that "it was an argument that just got very out of hand." The clemency board recommended the death sentence be carried out, and the governor was described as powerless to stop the execution.

Kristie Ceja gave brief testimony at the clemency hearing and said that Ceja told her he had planned the robbery and shooting, adding that "he has no remorse for anything he's done and if he had to do it again, he would." Martinez showed copies of letters Ceja wrote to Kristie threatening to kill her as "punishment."

A letter dated June 1996 included: "I should mention to you that if you put up any resistance while I am imposing punishment on you, you will only make it worse on yourself!"

Ceja’s attorney Charles Van Cott argued that Ceja had already served the equivalent of a life sentence while waiting to be executed, stating that "it is cruel and unusual to sentence someone to both a life sentence and a death sentence."

Juan Martinez, a deputy county attorney arguing for the state, said: "Are we to pin a medal on him? Is that so great, the fact he's served 23 years? And that through the mere passage of time he's deserving of something? Today, after 23 long years, it is his judgment day."

During the clemency proceedings, Melvin McDonald testified and stated: "every murder is a horrible crime. Every murder has a devastating impact on the relatives of the victims murdered. But not every murder warrants the death penalty."

Execution details

About 10 family members were allowed non-contact visits with him until 6 pm, including his mother. About 30 people witnessed the execution, including state and prison officials. However, at Ceja’s request, no family members were on hand to watch the execution.

Ceja asked for certain clergy members to be present.

At the time of execution, the drapes opened, Ceja lifted his head, recognized one of the witnesses, and smiled and winked. When asked if he had any final words, Ceja stated, "No, that's all right."

As the death warrant was read, Ceja’s eyes blinked quickly. At 12:02, the lethal concoction started filling his veins; his eyes continued to blink. He heaved 3 times, his mouth twitched, and he appeared to blow air from his mouth. At 12:05, he was pronounced dead by Corrections Diector Terry Stewart.

The lethal injection procedure described:

• sodium pentothal to render him unconscious,
• pancuronium bromide to paralyze his respiratory system,
• and potassium chloride that stopped his heart.

The witnesses described the execution as subtle and described media witness Brian Barks’s view that it "looked like putting your dog to sleep." State officials described the execution as "calm, cool, and clinical."

Ceja’s last meal included: 2 Red Chili Beef Burritos, 2 Cans Coke Classic, 1 slice Cherry Pie.

Other details

Ages and relationship details given

Ceja was described as 42 at the time of execution. Randy and Linda Leon were described as 24 and 22 respectively when they were gunned down.

Request and outcome of mercy efforts

The Arizona Board of Executive Clemency and the US Supreme Court denied mercy for Ceja. The execution proceeded with the clemency board recommending the death sentence be carried out and Gov. Jane Hull described as unable to stop the execution.

The Supreme Court rejected an emergency stay of execution shortly after the clemency board voted 4-1 against commuting Ceja’s sentence to life imprisonment.

Last Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco voted 2-1 to dismiss Ceja’s federal appeal and deny a stay of execution. Later, an unidentified judge sought a rehearing before a larger panel, but the request failed to gain a majority among the court’s 18 active judges.

Identity and parties named in federal proceedings

In the Ninth Circuit proceeding, Ceja was listed as Jose Jesus CEJA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections; Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent of Arizona State Prison, Respondents-Appellees. The case number was No. 94-99005. The panel included FLETCHER, FARRIS and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. The opinion was by Judge FARRIS, with partial concurrence and partial dissent by Judge FLETCHER.

Aggravation and mitigation procedural names

Prosecutors varied by stage: Joseph Shaw (first trial), Peter Whitmer (retrial), and Lawrence Turoff (resentencing).

Resentencing occurred on July 17, 1979, and the presiding judge was A. Melvin McDonald for the second trial, with the third hearing described without a named presiding judge in the included material.

Evidence about hearsay reversal

The Arizona Supreme Court reversal in 1976 was described as primarily because of hearsay problems with ballistics evidence.