Vernon Sattiewhite

Case record: Vernon Sattiewhite

Background

Vernon Sattiewhite, executed by lethal injection in Texas on August 15, 1995, had been convicted once before for murder on Sept. 5, 1976 but only served a five- year term. He was also convicted in 1984 for burglary in which he only served a six-month term.

Vernon Sattiewhite was charged with the murder of Sandra Sorrell, his ex-girfriend and nursing student, on Dec. 3, 1983. Sattiewhite’s murder charge would eventually be upgraded to capital murder with bodily injury.

Sattiewhite’s attorney, Nancy Barohn (Nancy), had failed at an attempt to appeal contending her client was “retarded, brain-damaged, schizophrenic and floridly insane.” The 11th hour appeal was rejected.

Sattiewhite made a suicide attempt on the night of the murder that was unsuccessful, and he was apprehended one block from the scene.

The offence

On the night of the murder, Sandra Sorrell was walking to school wtih boyfriend Willington Mingo when they were approached by Sattiewhite.

Sattiewhite dragged Sandra Sorrell two blocks in a headlock and shot her twice in the head with a 22.caliber pistol.

After the shooting, Sattiewhite turned the gun on himself exclaiming “ain’t nobody else gonna have her.”

Investigation

Sandra Sorrell was approached by Sattiewhite while she was walking to school wtih boyfriend Willington Mingo.

Sattiewhite was apprehended one block from the scene after his unsuccessful suicide attempt.

Arrest

Sattiewhite was apprehended one block from the scene following his unsuccessful suicide attempt.

Trial

A federal case narrative described the capital-murder procedure in detail. In the morning of June 19, 1986, Sattiewhite kidnapped and murdered his former girlfriend, Sandra Sorrell.1

On December 11, 1986, a jury found him guilty of capital murder. In the separate sentencing hearing the following day, the same jury answered affirmatively the two special issues submitted pursuant to former Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby sentencing him to death.

Sattiewhite directly appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his conviction and sentence on October 25, 1989. Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Sattiewhite's motion for rehearing was denied on March 28, 1990. Id. at 271.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 1, 1990. Sattiewhite v. Texas, 111 S.Ct. 226 (1990).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit proceeding included the following caption and procedural framing:

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 94-50444, Vernon Lamar Sattiewhite (Petitioner-Appellant) versus Wayne Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (Respondent-Appellee).

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-91-CA-1152) (April 20, 1995).

Before KING, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge.

Sattiewhite appealed the district court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set out below, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Sattiewhite raised several issues on appeal, including that his sentencing jury was precluded from considering constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; that he was presently incompetent to be executed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; that the operative terms of the special issues were unconstitutionally vague; that he was selectively prosecuted for capital murder; that jurors were unconstitutionally given irrelevant, inaccurate, and misleading information concerning the effect of their failure to agree on the special issues; that jury instructions precluded the jury from giving mitigating effect to evidence; that the Texas special issues were unconstitutionally mandatory and denied individualized sentencing consideration; that the trial court's charge on punishment failed to instruct the jury to consider mitigating evidence; that the Texas capital sentencing statute unconstitutionally misled the jury regarding responsibility for determining his sentence; and that the death penalty impermissibly infringed on his right to life.

The court addressed multiple arguments and rejected them, including an argument about voir dire misstatement of Texas law during jury selection:

The court stated that the trial court misstated Texas law when, during voir dire, it stated that if the jury could not reach agreement on the special issues, a mistrial would be declared.

Sentencing

At the separate sentencing hearing the following day after the December 11, 1986 guilty verdict, the same jury answered affirmatively the two special issues submitted pursuant to former Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby sentencing him to death.

Sattiewhite’s execution was then scheduled for May 2, 1991. On April 19, he initiated a state habeas proceeding. The state court modified his execution date to November 12. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the state habeas court denied relief on August 7. Based on the lower court's findings and conclusions, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied state habeas relief on November 7.

Sattiewhite filed a federal habeas application and motion for stay of execution on November 8, 1991. Because this motion was unopposed by the state, the district court granted a stay the same day. The court thereafter referred his case to a magistrate judge for appropriate proceedings. Sattiewhite amended his petition on December 13, which the state answered on April 6, 1992. After Sattiewhite had replied, the magistrate judge recommended that habeas relief be denied. Sattiewhite objected, and the district court recommitted the case to the magistrate judge to address Sattiewhite's objections.

On March 15, 1993, the magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on Sattiewhite's claim of juror misconduct. On September 7, 1993, the magistrate judge again recommended that all relief be denied. Sattiewhite filed his objections to this ruling on December 27, 1993.

On March 17, 1994, Sattiewhite's case was transferred to the docket of a newly appointed federal district judge, the Honorable Fred Biery. After conducting a de novo review of Sattiewhite's claims, the court entered an order on May 5, 1994, denying his petition, entered judgment in favor of the state, and vacated his stay of execution. The court subsequently denied Sattiewhite's request for post-judgment relief, but granted his request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

Appeals

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court reviewed issues raised by Sattiewhite and issued a disposition stating:

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Sattiewhite's stay of execution is VACATED. AFFIRMED and VACATED.

KING, Circuit Judge, specially concurring.

The court also included a footnote describing a local rule: Local Rule 47.5 provided that the publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession; pursuant to that Rule, the court determined that this opinion should not be published.

Footnote 1 stated that the facts and the procedure at the state court level were set out at Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).

Footnote 2 addressed statutory provisions: Article 37.071(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provided that neither the court nor any of the attorneys may inform a “juror or prospective juror of the effect of failure of the jury to agree on an issue submitted under this article.” Furthermore, article 37.071(e) provided that the jury's failure to agree on an issue requires a life sentence, not a mistrial.

Outcome

Vernon Sattiewhite was executed by lethal injection in Texas on August 15, 1995 at 12:25 a.m.

In his last statement, Sattiewhite said: “I would like to say – I just hope Ms. Fielder is happy now. I would like to thank my lawyer, Nancy, for her help on my case and for being with me now.”

At the time of death, he thanked his attorney and said, “I just hope Mrs. Fields (Sorrell’s mother) is happy now.”

Timeline

• Dec. 3, 1983 — Vernon Sattiewhite was charged with the murder of Sandra Sorrell.
• Sept. 5, 1976 — Sattiewhite was convicted once before for murder.
• 1984 — Sattiewhite was convicted for burglary.
• June 19, 1986 — Sattiewhite kidnapped and murdered Sandra Sorrell.
• Dec. 11, 1986 — A jury found Sattiewhite guilty of capital murder.
• Dec. 12, 1986 — A sentencing hearing was held; the jury answered affirmatively the two special issues and sentenced him to death.
• Oct. 25, 1989 — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Sattiewhite’s conviction and sentence.
• March 28, 1990 — Sattiewhite’s motion for rehearing was denied.
• Oct. 1, 1990 — The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
• April 19, 1991 — Sattiewhite initiated a state habeas proceeding.
• May 2, 1991 — Sattiewhite’s execution was scheduled.
• November 12, 1991 — The state court modified his execution date.
• August 7, 1991 — The state habeas court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
• November 7, 1991 — The Court of Criminal Appeals denied state habeas relief.
• November 8, 1991 — Sattiewhite filed a federal habeas application and motion for stay of execution.
• December 13, 1991 — Sattiewhite amended his petition.
• April 6, 1992 — The state answered the petition.
• March 15, 1993 — The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct.
• September 7, 1993 — The magistrate judge again recommended that all relief be denied.
• December 27, 1993 — Sattiewhite filed objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling.
• March 17, 1994 — The case was transferred to Judge Fred Biery’s docket.
• May 5, 1994 — The district court denied the petition and vacated the stay of execution.
• August 15, 1995 — Sattiewhite was executed by lethal injection in Texas (12:25 a.m.).

Other details

Sattiewhite kidnapped and murdered his former girlfriend, Sandra Sorrell.

Sandra Sorrell had a boyfriend named Willington Mingo.

Sattiewhite’s attorney was Nancy Barohn, also referred to as Nancy.

Sattiewhite’s last statement expressed that he hoped Ms. Fielder or Mrs. Fields (Sandra Sorrell’s mother) was happy now.

A claim about effective assistance of counsel involved trial counsel investigating Sattiewhite’s mental condition and background and abandoning an insanity defense as a matter of trial strategy. Trial counsel hired an independent psychiatrist to examine him on sanity and competency and interviewed his family members, providing their names to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrists diagnosed Sattiewhite with mental disorders, stated that he was not insane at the time of the offense or trial, and left trial counsel with no basis for pursuing an insanity defense.

A contention about jury instructions and special issues included the statement that the trial court instructed jurors that: “[i]f ten or more jurors vote "no" as to any special issue, then the answer of the jury is "no" regarding that special issue.”

The court clarified that if less than twelve jurors voted “yes” or less than ten jurors voted “no” to a special issue, there would be no answer to that special issue.

Sattiewhite sought an appeal that contended his client was: “retarded, brain-damaged, schizophrenic and floridly insane.”