Missouri judge rejects inmate claims that sentencing decision was illegal
A Missouri man serving life without parole on Monday lost a bid to reopen his criminal case for an in-person resentencing he claims he was unconstitutionally denied.
Deandra Buchanan, convicted in Boone County of three counts of first-degree in 2002, was originally sentenced to death. The Missouri Supreme Court reduced the sentence to life without parole in 2003.
The statute allowing the court to directly resentence people sentenced to death violates another law, and federal court precedent, requiring defendants to be present when their sentence is pronounced, Buchanan argued through public defender Tyler Coyle.
When the Supreme Court found the death sentence to be unconstitutional in Buchanan's case, the trial court should have brought him in for in-person resentencing.
But Boone County Circuit Judge Jeff Harris disagreed, deciding that the high court was within its authority when it changed Buchanan's sentence. Harris didn't address the constitutional questions raised by Buchanan.
'Because the Supreme Court exercised its authority to resentence defendant, there was no need and basis for the circuit court to take any further action or hold a resentencing hearing,' Harris wrote.
The ruling isn't a setback, Coyle said, because he and Buchanan had expected a definitive ruling would come from an appeals court.
'The state argued at our in-person hearing that if we have a problem with what the Supreme Court did, we should be asking the Supreme Court,' Coyle said. 'That's what the prosecutor argued to Judge Harris. It kind of sounds like by not addressing that part of it, that's what is left for us to do now.'
In his final brief in the case, Coyle wrote that the question is analogous to the issue decided by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2022 when defendants challenged the outcome of hearings held online with witnesses or defendants not physically present.
The hearing formats were intended to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19.
In those cases, the court ruled unanimously that there are no 'sick days' for constitutional rights.
'There's a fundamental right to be present for all critical stages,' Coyle said. 'The U.S. Supreme Court has said this, and the U.S. Supreme Court has also said that sentencing is a critical stage.'
Assistant Boone County prosecutor Yao Li, who argued that Buchanan should be pursuing his claims at the Missouri Supreme Court, also argued that the time for the challenge had long passed.
'The law of the case and lapse of jurisdiction prohibits him from raising the claim here,' Li wrote in his final brief to Harris.
Along with arguing that the 2003 resentencing was legal under state statute and rule,
Buchanan contends he was never legally sentenced and that has prevented him from seeking post-conviction relief.
Buchanan doesn't deny his guilt. He spoke at length about his case in an episode of the Netflix series 'I am a Killer.'
'We can never change the fact that my family members lost their lives, my girl, my friend, was shot,' Buchanan said in an April interview at Jefferson City Correctional Center. 'You can't put time on that.'
But he claims he has no memory of the crime. He said he believes marijuana he smoked that night was laced with PCP and tests of sweat residue in the shirt he wore shows that.
He cannot pursue those arguments without a final sentence, Buchanan said Wednesday in a telephone interview. That is why he needs an in-person sentencing.
'Any court in Missouri is obligated to honor my federal rights, because I'm dealing with a constitutional right,' Buchanan said. 'I have a constitutional right to be present.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump ignores legacy admissions in push for college ‘fairness'
President Trump has repeatedly said he's pushing for 'fairness' in the college admissions process, but his administration has done nothing to go after legacy admissions, despite their unpopularity along bipartisan lines. Reforming the university application and acceptance process has been a key part of many of Trump's moves on higher education, including the deals to restore federal funding he's made with multiple schools. But the practice of accepting applicants based on alumni or donor status, which some schools have sought to roll back independently, has been left alone by the administration. 'If the Trump administration was truly concerned about merit, legacy admissions would be one of the first policies they would challenge, and by ignoring it, it makes their rhetoric around meritocracy just hollow,' said Wesley Whistle, project director of higher education at New America. Legacy admissions have been a bipartisan target for years, especially since the renewed push for racial equality in 2020 and since the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions. Advocates argue legacy preferences unfairly boost white and rich applicants, with selective and private institutions more likely to use the practice. Education Reform Now says some 420 U.S. colleges still use legacy admissions, though that is down more than 50 percent from 2015. While some schools don't use legacy to determine acceptance, they will give scholarships based on legacy status. Trump often focuses his higher education rhetoric more on reforming classroom curricula, faculty ideology or the handling of protests, but changes to admissions have regularly been part of his demands. In restoring federal funding to Brown and Columbia universities, agreements were struck regarding transparency of admission data and ensuring 'merit-based' admissions. Trump also signed a memorandum directing the Department of Education to collect more admissions data from universities and compile the information into an easily accessible database for parents and students. 'American students and taxpayers deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity of our Nation's institutions of higher education, including confidence that they are recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists, and other critical workers vital to the next generations of American prosperity. Race-based admissions practices are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being,' the order reads. The Trump administration has largely justified its going after schools over their alleged inaction against campus antisemitism, which advocates say should make legacy an even more attractive target as Jewish applicants were among those disadvantaged by the practice. 'Attacking legacy preferences would be directly in line with these three arguments Trump has been making about merit, about a rigged system and about antisemitism. It's troubling that the administration hasn't said anything from our legacy preferences,' said Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute 'So for all three of those reasons, it would be very natural for the Trump administration to go after legacy preferences. So, it's baffling that they have not, and I think, deeply hypocritical,' he added. The White House and the Education Department did not respond to The Hill's request for comment. Admissions information has largely been a well-kept secret among higher education leaders, with advocates eager to see more data but afraid what the Trump administration might do in response to it. Many universities have been proactive about independently, or in response to state laws, ridding themselves of legacy admissions. Well-known schools such as Amherst College have ended it on their own, and states such as Virginia and Illinois have outlawed the practice at public universities. California has sought to make legacy admissions illegal even for private entities. Multiple bipartisan bills have been introduced to ban legacy admissions nationwide, but none have succeeded despite public support. While the practice is widely unpopular, some believe it is the right of private institutions to decide their policies on this issue and that legacy students can be beneficial to institutions. All the Ivy League schools still consider legacy admissions. Stanford University decided to defy the new California state law and keep legacy preferences, forfeiting money from a state grant program for its decision. 'Should a private university have legacy admissions? We argue that's up to the university, but there are some good reasons, in some cases, to have it, and those include, for instance, students are more likely to select themselves in or out if someone they know and trust, like their own father or mother, has gone there,' said Adam Kissel, visiting fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy. 'If I were an admissions officer and someone is a legacy applicant, I would say I'd be surprised if they're not a fit here, because they probably know whether they're a fit. There's less of a risk on that person. But it's not about merit necessarily, and so that brings up the merit question,' he added.
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: What Justice Amy Coney Barrett's words on disagreement can teach us
Rodney King's famous line 'Can we all get along?' feels more relevant than ever today, underscoring our highly regrettable departure from civility toward a more belligerent and uneasy political reality. But every now and then, we see small but significant signs that there's movement toward reviving civil discourse. One of those moments recently took place here in Chicago. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Monday joined other members of the bench and bar at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference at the Swissotel and praised her peers for their collegiality. 'It occurs to me that law is a profession that, unlike some others, operates continually through the strain of disagreement,' she said. 'Doctors cooperate and coordinate to deal with patients. Engineers work together to build the bridge. But litigants and their lawyers are pitted against one another on opposite sides of the 'V.'' Here was the part of her remarks that most hit home with us: 'We know how to argue, but we also know how to do it without letting it consume relationships.' The legal profession has long operated this way. That it continues to do so despite mounting partisan pressure is an example worth noting for the rest of us. Coney Barrett, of course, is no stranger to vitriol. The justice, who joined the high court in October 2020, was called a 'religious bigot' and a 'monster' during her confirmation hearings. Her family, too, has endured attacks — from criticism of her adopted children to a bomb threat against her sister earlier this year. Point is, she's dealt with fierce criticisms and personal attacks directly. Yet here she stood, speaking with all sincerity about the importance of respectful discourse. We encourage more officials to take this tone — not just at the lectern but in their daily dealings, setting a model for how the rest of us navigate politics. Our current political climate is particularly dangerous because people have started viewing anyone who disagrees with their politics as evil or less than human. And when you dehumanize people in this fashion, it becomes OK to hate them — or even hurt them. Too often, that mindset fuels violence. In June, a gunman killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in their own home. Politically motivated violence is a scourge that must end. We need to reestablish that disagreeing with people on politics doesn't mean hating them. That's not to say we always should agree or that there's never room for heated exchanges. We wholeheartedly support championing the causes in which you believe. Indeed, sometimes moral outrage is justified. But we don't have to be morally outraged every single day, and if your moral outrage leads you to hate other people, maybe it's time to reevaluate. That was the deeper point of Barrett's reminder: Disagreement need not destroy relationships. If judges and lawyers can argue without contempt for each other, then those of us in walks of life that don't routinely entail intellectual combat can do the same.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Bullet was fired into Chiefs coach Andy Reid's office last spring while he was there, says Kansas City Star
People in sports Crime Gun violence FacebookTweetLink A bullet was fired into Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid's office at the team's practice facility last spring while he was inside, the Kansas City Star reported Wednesday. The Star, citing multiple sources, reported Reid was working alone in his office in early May 2024 when a bullet fired from outside the building broke through glass and left a hole through the window and blinds. It got lodged in a wall between his bathroom and the entry door to his office. The team installed bulletproof glass soon afterward. The Star reported two more bullets hit the facility, with one striking the third floor and another an outdoor air-conditioning unit. Few people in the organization knew about the incident. A Chiefs spokesman declined comment to the AP on Wednesday night. The incident occurred just months after Reid led the Chiefs to a Super Bowl championship repeat and their third title in a five-year span. They won the AFC again last season, only to lose to Philadelphia. Reid has a 273-146-1 record in 12 seasons with the Chiefs and 14 with the Eagles. He ranks fourth on the NFL's all-time wins list behind Don Shula, George Halas and Bill Belichick.
