Reyes Miranda

Overview

Reyes Miranda was born on 12/20/59. He was convicted in state court of murder and sentenced to death following Oregon's two-stage trial and sentencing procedure. His death sentence was later overturned, and he was resentenced to life in prison.

Background

The prosecution presented evidence that the victim met Nefstad and codefendant Reyes Miranda in a bar in Oregon. The victim was last seen leaving the bar with the two defendants.

The offence

The prosecution presented evidence that less than an hour later, a bank surveillance camera photographed Miranda stealing $200 from the victim's account through an automatic teller machine in Oregon. The evidence included forensic findings and medical testimony about the victim’s death.

The medical examiner testified that the victim’s blood was out of his body before it was dumped in a gorge in Vancouver, Washington. The examiner’s testimony also established that the victim was stabbed while sitting in the car and would have lost his blood there. The victim sustained stab wounds to his heart and lung that would cause the victim to have died within minutes of receiving those wounds.

Blood appeared to be on Miranda's shirt. Almost no blood was found at the scene where the body was dumped. Miranda's car, however, was soaked with the victim's blood.

Investigation

The prosecution presented evidence that a bank surveillance camera photographed Miranda stealing $200 from the victim's account through an automatic teller machine in Oregon. The evidence also included observations of blood at Miranda’s shirt, the scene where the body was dumped, and Miranda’s car.

Trial

Reyes Miranda was convicted in state court of murder and sentenced to death following Oregon's two-stage trial and sentencing procedure.

Appeals

Oregon Supreme Court

The State Supreme Court found no error in his judgment of conviction, but found an error requiring resentencing.

United States District Court

After the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision reported in State v. Miranda, 309 Or. 121, 786 P.2d 155 (1990), Miranda sued in the United States District Court to enjoin his resentencing by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon.

The District Court dismissed his action under the authority of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Reyes Miranda filed as Petitioner-Appellant in Reyes MIRANDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of Oregon, Respondent-Appellee, No. 90-35790, in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

• Submitted: Sept. 11, 1991
• Decided: Sept. 13, 1991
• Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges
• Opinion type: MEMORANDUM

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal.

The Ninth Circuit described Miranda’s argument as seeking to enjoin his resentencing in state court on the ground that, under the impression that a new penalty proceeding before a different jury violates the United States Constitution, injunctive relief should be granted.

The Ninth Circuit stated:

United States district courts do not enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings when there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions in those proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 at 45 (1971); World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 613 (9th Cir.1987).
We express no opinion whether a federal question is presented.

The Ninth Circuit further stated:

The appellant has cited no case and we have found none authorizing the United States District Court to grant injunctive relief when the state criminal proceedings are in the procedural posture of this case.

The Ninth Circuit’s disposition concluded:

Judgment is AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously found the case suitable for submission without oral argument.

Outcome

Miranda’s death sentence was overturned, and he was resentenced to life in prison.

Other details

The case included citations and procedural references:

• State v. Miranda, 309 Or. 121, 786 P.2d 155 (1990)
• Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
• World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 613 (9th Cir.1987)
• 943 F.2d 55
• The disposition included the note that:
  • “This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3”