Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Walanzo Deon
ROBINSON
New name: Minister Walanzo Shabaka
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Member of the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods
- Drugs
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder:
May 19,
1989
Date
of arrest:
September 7,
1989
Date of birth:
April 12,
1971
Victim profile: Dennis
Hill (male, 26)
Method of murder:
Shooting (.38-caliber
revolver)
Location: Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, USA
Status:
Executed
by lethal injection in Oklahoma on March 18,
2003
Robinson was a member of the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods, a violent
street gang active in the crack cocaine trade. He had been staying
with friends in Oklahoma City.
After an argument over drug sales and turf on a streetcorner, Hill
was shot in the back as he ran by Robinson with a .38 handgun.
Robinson then followed the wounded Hill and fired two more bullets
into him as he lay in the street.
Robinson then fled the state, but was arrested in Los Angeles four
months later.
Citations:
Robinson v. State, 937 P.2d 101 (Okl.Cr. 1997). (PCR) Robinson v. State, 900 P.2d 389 (Okl.Cr. 1995). (Direct
Appeal)
Final Meal:
Cucumber salad, beef sausage pizza, a chocolate fudge sundae with
nuts and a small jar of dill pickle halves.
Final Words:
Robinson's two-minute final statement was inaudible through the
prison sound system, but corrections officials said he maintained
his innocence to the end.
ClarkProsecutor.org
Oklahoma Department of
Corrections
Inmate: Walanzo D. Robinson
ODOC# 189399
Birthdate: 04/12/1971
Race: Black
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 09 in
Weight: 167 pounds
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Location: Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Mcalester
Oklahoma Attorney General News
Release
News Release - W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney
General
February 5, 2003
Execution Date Set for Jackson, Robinson
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals today set
execution dates for death row inmates Larry Kenneth Jackson and
Walanzo Deon Robinson. Attorney General Drew Edmondson requested the
dates Jan. 15 after the United States Supreme Court denied the
inmates' final appeals.
Jackson, 40, is scheduled to be executed Feb. 18
for the Sept. 6, 1994, murder of his girlfriend Wendy Cade. Cade,
29, picked Jackson up at the Jim Thorpe Building in Oklahoma City
where Jackson was on a prison work crew.
The pair left together in
Cade's jeep and checked into an Oklahoma City motel. A confrontation
ensued in the bathroom, and Jackson later confessed to killing Cade
with a box knife, cutting her throat about 30 times and severing her
jugular vein.
Robinson, 31, is scheduled to be executed March
18 for the May 19, 1989, murder of 26-year old Dennis Hill in
Oklahoma City.
According to court records, Robinson and Hill and
previously been involved in a confrontation. A witness reported Hill
was shot as he attempted to run across 20th Street. Robinson then
reportedly walked to where Hill fell and shot him two more times
with a .38-caliber revolver.
Currently, four Oklahoma death row inmates are
scheduled for execution. Bobby Joe Fields, Oklahoma County, Feb. 13;
John Michael Hooker, Oklahoma County, March 25; David Jay Brown,
Grady County, March 27, and Scott Allen Hain, Creek County, April 3.
An execution date has been requested for Oklahoma County inmate Don
Wilson Hawkins, Jr.
ProDeathPenalty.com
Walanzo Robinson is scheduled for execution March
18 for the murder of Dennis Hill in an apparent argument over drug
turf in northeast Oklahoma City. Robinson came to Oklahoma City from
Los Angeles.
Police officers in Los Angeles testified at his trial
that he was a member of the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods, a violent
street gang active in the crack cocaine trade. Robinson had been
staying with friends in Oklahoma City.
On May 19, 1989, he and Hill
argued, with Robinson accusing Hill of stealing drug customers,
court transcripts say. Prosecutors said that Hill was shot in the
back by Robinson.
Then, Robinson followed the wounded Hill and fired
two more bullets into him as he lay on the ground. Several witnesses
testified seeing Robinson shoot Hill twice as Hill walked away. They
testified that Robinson walked up to Hill, who was still alive, and
shot him two more times. Robinson then fled the state. Los Angeles
police arrested Robinson four months after the slaying.
The arresting officer characterized Robinson as a
dangerous man. "I have been in contact with hundreds of gang members
in my career," former Los Angeles police officer Daniel Mathieu
stated in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. "Some
are considered 'hardcore' while I have heard the term 'wanna-bes' or
less hard core with others.
Robinson was a hardcore member of the
Van-Ness Gangsters. This gang was very active in murders, drive-by
shootings and drug sales. They were known for their violence."
Mathieu said he had been threatened by gang members after Robinson's
arrest.
The murder occurred in May 1989. Robinson was
arrested in California on September 7, 1989. Four witnesses, all
with prior criminal records, identified Robinson as the man who shot
Hill.
Although they did not identify him by his real name, but
rather "Bandit," a street nickname they knew him by. Robinson also
admitted to police that during his violent life, he had been the
victim of five drive-by shootings and was a gang member.
Robinson
may have been in Oklahoma at the time to set up a drug dealing
operation. Robinson's attorneys claim that prosecutors convicted him
with little hard evidence.
They also claim that the jury was tainted
by racist leanings of some jurors. His attorneys said that one juror,
a black woman, had been pressured to vote for a death sentence when
she initially wanted to sentence Robinson to life in prison.
The
attorney general's offices disputes these claims. One of the jurors,
Joel Johnson, also said there were no racist leanings by the jury.
The Pardon and Parole Board voted against clemency for Robinson. He
has denied involvement in Hill's death.
UPDATE:
Walanzo Deon Robinson was executed
Tuesday for the 1989 killing of a rival Oklahoma City drug dealer
who was shot three times in the street. Robinson, 31, died at 6:10
p.m. after receiving a lethal dose of drugs at the Oklahoma State
Penitentiary. He had been convicted of 1st-degree murder for killing
Dennis Hill May 19, 1989. "It's been a long 13 years of waiting,
pain and stress for me," Anthony Lee, Hill's brother, said in a
statement. "And now the time has come when my mind can be free, but
Dennis can still be in my heart."
The execution was carried out after the U.S.
Supreme Court denied Robinson's last-ditch appeal Tuesday without
comment. His previous appeals had also all been denied.
Robinson had
alleged in Monday's appeal that racial bias led the jury to give him
the death sentence and that the evidence used to convict him was
circumstantial and filled with discrepancy. "Walanzo Robinson was
properly convicted and sentenced,"
Attorney General Drew Edmondson
said in a statement. "His appeals have been exhausted and the Pardon
and Parole Board has rightfully denied clemency. It is time the
execution is carried out."
Robinson, who was 18 at the time, and
Hill were arguing over who could sell cocaine on a northeast
Oklahoma City street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun,
witnesses said.
Robinson shot Hill, 26, in the back as he tried to
run away, then shot him twice more as he lay in the street asking
someone to call an ambulance, according to witnesses. "It is
absolutely cold-blooded," said Gary Ackley, who prosecuted Robinson
for the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office. "He swept away
the life of Mr. Hill the way you would swipe away a fly that's
bothering you.
People with that little regard for human life don't
deserve to live." Robinson's appeal said a lone black juror switched
her vote in favor of death only after some white jurors intimidated
her and referred to her with racial slurs, like "Little Miss Slave
Trader."
Robinson's attorneys used the same argument in
unsuccesfully asking for clemency. The juror, Marcia Davidson, did
not testify during the clemency hearing, leaving Robinson to rely on
2nd-hand accounts of her allegations.
Edmondson responded to
Robinson's court appeal Tuesday, citing other jurors' testimony that
they heard no such abuse during the deliberations, a spokeswoman
said. Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board members denied clemency March
12, with three voting against it, one abstaining and the other
recusing herself.
It was the newly appointed board's 1st clemency
case. Helen Lee-Hawkins, Hill's sister, recalled Hill as a fishing
enthusiast, who enjoyed reading the newspaper and detailing cars.
Hill was also close to her son, she said. "Walanzo showed no
emotions, no sympathy or a care in the world for his behavior," Lee-Hawkins
wrote in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.
National Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty
Walanzo Robinson (OK) - March 18, 2003 - 6:00
CST, 7:00 EST
The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute
Walanzo Robinson March 18 for the 1989 murder of Dennis Hill in
Oklahoma City. Robinson, a black man, allegedly shot Hill after the
two – both drug dealers – engaged in an argument over money and
territory. At trial, his jury consisted of 11 white people; when the
sole black juror decided Robinson deserved a life sentence, she
received intimidation and harassment from her fellow jurors. They
told her she was “just one nigger helping out another” and
eventually persuaded her to vote for the death penalty.
After reviewing the circumstances concerning this
racist coercion, a federal district judge wrote that the allegations,
“if proven true, are egregious and intolerable.” However, the U.S.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2002 that the
testimony of this holdout juror could not be used to overturn the
sentence. Now, after a 14-year process clearly tainted by
discrimination and bigotry, Robinson is just a few weeks away from
his scheduled execution.
Since his initial arrest in 1989, he has
professed his innocence, claiming that although he was in the
vicinity when the Hill murder occurred, he did not commit it.
Prosecutors presented no physical evidence linking him to the crime,
and earned a conviction based only on eyewitness accounts, which are
historically unreliable.
The governor’s power of executive clemency marks
the final safeguard against the overt racial discrimination that
clearly led to this pending execution. In Oklahoma, the governor can
commute a death sentence if the Pardon and Parole Board gives him a
favorable recommendation. Sadly, Gov. Brad Henry has shown little
respect for the Board’s understanding of the system since he entered
office earlier this year. In February, he ignored a clemency
recommendation in the case of Bobby Joe Fields – a man clearly
railroaded by the justice system. Fields unknowingly pled guilty for
a death sentence and found himself on death row without a trial.
Gov. Henry evidently paid no attention to the Board’s
recommendation, and the state executed Fields on Feb. 13.
Robinson’s hearing before the Oklahoma Pardon and
Parole Board starts at 10 am on March 12, and shortly thereafter,
the Board will pass along its recommendation to Gov. Henry. If the
Board gives him the opportunity, Gov. Henry should commute this
sentence in the interest of fairness and racial justice. Please
write the state of Oklahoma and request clemency for Walanzo
Robinson.
Robinson Executed for 1989 Fatal Shooting of
Rival Drug Dealer
Daily Oklahoman
March 18, 2003
McALESTER (AP) - Walanzo Deon Robinson was
executed Tuesday for the 1989 killing of a rival Oklahoma City drug
dealer who was shot three times in the street.
Robinson, 31, died at
6:10 p.m. after receiving a lethal dose of drugs at the Oklahoma
State Penitentiary. He had been convicted of first-degree murder for
killing Dennis Hill May 19, 1989.
"It's been a long 13 years of waiting, pain and
stress for me," Anthony Lee, Hill's brother, said in a statement. "And
now the time has come when my mind can be free, but Dennis can still
be in my heart."
Robinson is the third inmate put to death this year
in Oklahoma and the 141st in the state's history. Execution dates
are also set for four other inmates. The execution was carried out
after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Robinson's last-ditch appeal
Tuesday without comment. His previous appeals had also all been
denied.
Robinson had alleged in Monday's appeal that
racial bias led the jury to give him the death sentence and that the
evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and filled with
discrepancy. "Walanzo Robinson was properly convicted and sentenced,"
Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in a statement. "His appeals
have been exhausted and the Pardon and Parole Board has rightfully
denied clemency. It is time the execution is carried out."
Robinson, who was 18 at the time, and Hill were
arguing over who could sell cocaine on a northeast Oklahoma City
street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun, witnesses said.
Robinson shot Hill, 26, in the back as he tried to run away, then
shot him twice more as he lay in the street asking someone to call
an ambulance, according to witnesses. "It is absolutely cold-blooded,"
said Gary Ackley, who prosecuted Robinson for the Oklahoma County
District Attorney's office. "He swept away the life of Mr. Hill the
way you would swipe away a fly that's bothering you. People with
that little regard for human life don't deserve to live."
Robinson's appeal said a lone black juror
switched her vote in favor of death only after some white jurors
intimidated her and referred to her with racial slurs, like "Little
Miss Slave Trader." Robinson's attorneys used the same argument in
unsuccesfully asking for clemency.
The juror, Marcia Davidson, did
not testify during the clemency hearing, leaving Robinson to rely on
second-hand accounts of her allegations. Edmondson responded to
Robinson's court appeal Tuesday, citing other jurors' testimony that
they heard no such abuse during the deliberations, a spokeswoman
said.
Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board members denied
clemency March 12, with three voting against it, one abstaining and
the other recusing herself. It was the newly appointed board's first
clemency case. Helen Lee-Hawkins, Hill's sister, recalled Hill as a
fishing enthusiast, who enjoyed reading the newspaper and detailing
cars. Hill was also close to her son, she said. "Walanzo showed no
emotions, no sympathy or a care in the world for his behavior," Lee-Hawkins
wrote in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.
Meanwhile, Robinson ate a last meal Tuesday of
cucumber salad, beef sausage pizza, a chocolate fudge sundae with
nuts and a small jar of dill pickle halves. Robinson is the third
Oklahoma inmate to be put to death this year. Bobby Joe Fields, 39,
was executed Feb. 13 for the 1993 slaying of an elderly Oklahoma
City woman during a burglary. Daniel Juan Revilla, 34, of Altus, was
executed Jan. 16 for the 1986 death of his girlfriend's baby.
Former Gang Member Executed in Oklahoma for
Drug Turf Murder
TheDeathHouse.com
McALESTER, Okla. - A former member of a violent
Los Angeles street gang who was convicted of kiling a rival drug
dealer in Oklahoma City was executed by lethal injection Tuesday
night at the state penitentiary. Walanzo Deon Robinson, 31, was put
to death for the 1989 murder of Dennis Hill.
Prosecutors said that
Robinson was angry that Hill, 26, was taking away his drug customers
from a street corner and pumped at least three bullets into him. Los
Angeles police gang experts had identified Robinson as a member of
the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods, a crack dealing gang responsible for
drive-by shootings and murders.
Robinson, who professed to be a
Muslim minister and referred to himself as Walanzo Shabaka, became
the third convicted killer executed in Oklahoma in 2003. Robinson
was just 18-years-old at the time of the murder. He had claimed he
was innocent.
Robinson: Act Against Islam Jerry Massie, public
relations manager for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, said
that although Robinson's last statement was inaudible to witnesses,
he was told that the condemned man blamed Oklahoma for "killing an
innocent man." Robinson said his execution was an act against the
Islam nation, Massie said. The lethal chemicals began flowing at
6:07 p.m. and Robinson was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m., Massie said.
Shot Victim In Back
Robinson was the second condemned murderer to be
executed on Tuesday. Earlier, the federal government executed Louis
Jones at a federal prison in Indiana. Jones, a retired Army Ranger,
had kidnapped, raped and murdered a young female soldier in
Texas.Prosecutors said that Hill was shot in the back by Robinson.
Then, Robinson followed the wounded crack dealer and fired two more
bullets into him as he lay on the ground. Robinson then fled the
state.He was arrested in California on September 7, 1989.
Identified
By Street NameFour witnesses, all with prior criminal records,
identified Robinson as the man who shot Hill. However, the witnesses
did not identify Robinson by his real name, but his street nickname
of "Bandit."One of the central issues appealed was over a lone black
juror who had claimed that she switched her vote to sentence
Robinson to death after white jurors used racial slurs against him.
Oklahoma Executes Man for 1989 Murder
By
Clayton Bellamy - Kansas City Star
March 18, 2003
McALESTER, Okla. - A man convicted of first-degree
murder for gunning down a rival drug dealer in the street was
executed Tuesday by injection. Walanzo Deon Robinson, 31, was put to
death at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary after the U.S. Supreme
Court denied his final appeal.
Robinson's two-minute final statement
was inaudible through the prison sound system, but corrections
officials said he maintained his innocence to the end. Robinson was
convicted for the shooting death of Dennis Hill in May 1989.
Witnesses said Robinson, who was 18 at the time,
and Hill were arguing over who could sell cocaine on an Oklahoma
City street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun.
As Hill tried
to run away, Robinson shot him in the back, then shot him twice more
as he lay in the street pleading for an ambulance. Robinson had
alleged in his appeals that racial bias led the jury to give him the
death sentence and that the evidence used to convict him was
circumstantial and filled with discrepancy.
Hill's brothers, Anthony and Cordell Lee, were
present at the execution. "It's been a long 13 years of waiting,
pain and stress for me," Anthony Lee said in a statement. "And now
the time has come when my mind can be free, but Dennis can still be
in my heart."
Robinson is the third inmate executed in Oklahoma
this year; four others are scheduled.
Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty
Amnesty International Urgent Action Appeal -
Walanzo Robinson - March 18, 2003
Walanzo Robinson (m), black, aged 32, is
scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma on 18 March. He was sentenced
to death in June 1990 for the murder of Dennis Eugene Hill, black,
in May 1989. Walanzo Robinson had reached his 18th birthday a month
before the murder.
Dennis Hill and Walanzo Robinson were both
dealing drugs in Oklahoma City. Dennis Hill was shot in the early
hours of 19 May 1989 after he and Walanzo Robinson allegedly had an
argument. Walanzo Robinson, who maintains that he was in the area of
the killing but that he did not shoot Dennis Hill, was convicted on
the basis of eyewitness testimony, a notoriously unreliable form of
evidence. Indeed, witnesses had given differing accounts of the
crime. There was no physical evidence linking Walanzo Robinson to
the shooting. His trial lasted for two days.
The jury consisted of 11 whites and one African
American. Post-conviction investigations by the defence revealed
that the sole black juror had not wanted to vote for the death
penalty.
The juror told an investigator that she had been subjected
to mental and physical intimidation by fellow jurors, who "yelled
and screamed" at her, and "slammed down papers and their hands or
fists on the table" because she was the only person to fail to vote
for death. She said that fellow jurors had said that she was just "one
nigger helping out another" and that the "jury was not leaving the
room without a death sentence".
After eight hours of such pressure,
she said that she relented and voted for death because she was "tired
of the hostility and cruelty of the other jurors". Another defence
investigator signed an affidavit that he had spoken to the jury
foreman. The latter allegedly confirmed to the investigator that the
African American woman had been the only juror not wanting to vote
for death, and that he, the foreman, had been among those haranguing
her until she changed her mind.
In general, the rules of evidence do not allow US
courts to consider juror allegations in post-conviction proceedings
in order to preserve the state's interest in protecting the jury
deliberation process. The appeal courts have chosen not to make an
exception in this case.
In 1999, a federal district judge
acknowledged that the allegations made by the juror, "if proven true,
are egregious and intolerable". Citing a 1915 US Supreme Court
precedent on this issue, the US Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit wrote that choosing not to review the juror affidavit in the
Walanzo Robinson case "represents a choice of the 'lesser of two
evils' - not redressing a private litigant's injury in favour of
upholding the public policy promoting private and unassailable juror
deliberations".
However, such evidentiary restrictions do not apply
to executive clemency, a power which exists in part to compensate
for the inability or unwillingness of the judiciary to take certain
evidence into account. In March 1999, for example, Governor Mike
Huckabee of Arkansas commuted the death sentence of Bobby Ray
Fretwell.
The governor said that he had been swayed by an appeal
from one of the trial jurors for the execution to be stopped. The
juror wrote that he had been the only one of the 12 initially to
vote for life, but had changed his vote to death because he felt
intimidated and did not want to be shunned by his community.
There
will be a clemency hearing for Walanzo Robinson before the state
Pardon and Parole Board on 12 March 2003. The Governor cannot
commute a death sentence unless the Board make a recommendation for
him to do so. He can reject such a recommendation. He also has the
power to issue a temporary reprieve, which he could use to ask the
Board to reconsider a vote against clemency.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty
in all cases. Since executions resumed in the USA in 1977, there
have been 830 executions nationwide, of which 56 have been carried
out in Oklahoma. In 2001, Amnesty International published a major
report on its range of concerns relating to Oklahoma's death penalty
which the organization provided to the state's legislature and
executive authorities (see Old Habits Die Hard: The death penalty in
Oklahoma, AMR 51/055/2001, April 2001).
In its 2001 report on the USA, the UN Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged the authorities "to
ensure, possibly by imposing a moratorium, that no death penalty is
imposed as a result of racial bias on the part of prosecutors,
judges, juries and lawyers..." Walanzo Robinson's case is not the
first time that racist coercion of a black juror by white jurors has
been alleged in the USA. For example, William Hance, black, was
executed in Georgia in 1994.
The only African American juror on his
jury later came forward to say that she had not voted for the death
penalty, but that the rest of the jury had decided to tell the judge
that they had reached a unanimous verdict for execution.
The black
juror said that she had been too intimidated by the misconduct and
racism in the jury room to object. African American Louis Truesdale
was executed in South Carolina in 1998. The only black juror later
came forward to say that she had wanted to vote for life
imprisonment, but had been intimidated by the racism prevailing in
the jury room into changing her vote to death.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive
as quickly as possible:
- expressing sympathy for the family and friends
of Dennis Eugene Hill, and explaining that you are not seeking to
excuse the manner of his death or the suffering it will have caused;
- noting that the conviction of Walanzo Robinson
was based solely on eyewitness testimony, a notoriously unreliable
form of evidence; - expressing deep concern at the allegations made
by the sole African American juror at his trial that she only
changed her vote to death under mental and physical intimidation
from her fellow jurors; - noting that the federal district court
said that, if true, what the juror alleged in this case would be
"egregious and intolerable"; - noting that the rules of evidence
have not allowed the appeal courts to review this juror evidence,
adding that executive clemency authorities are not restricted by
such rules, and that the power of executive clemency exists in part
to compensate for the inability of the judiciary to take certain
factors into account (you may note the 1999 Fretwell case in
Arkansas); - calling for clemency for Walanzo Robinson, in the
interests of ending racism and promoting justice and the reputation
of the State of Oklahoma and the USA as a whole; - in appeals to the
Governor, you should urge that, in the absence of a clemency
recommendation from the Pardon and Parole Board, he use his power of
reprieve to stop this execution.
APPEALS TO: Appeals to the Board should arrive by
11 March (appeals to the Governor can be sent up to 18 March).
Please quote Walanzo Robinson's inmate number: #189399 (on the
outside of envelope if sending a letter).
Help Walanzo
Dear Governor Brad Henry:
We, Friends and Supporters of Minister Shabaka (FASOMS),
humbly petition you as Governor of the Great State of Oklahoma to
investigate the trial, conviction and appeals of Minister Walanzo
Shabaka (Robinson), whom we are convinced has become a victim of a
grave miscarriage of justice.
The matter of Minister Shabaka raises profound
concern for the level of legal representation administered him at
Trial which shamefully set stage for his unfair conviction to (Malice
Aforethought) MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, tried before the Honorable
Judge Bana B. Blasdel of Oklahoma County District Court {Case No.
89-4791}, in which the conviction and sentencing of Death were
entered on the 7th June 1990 and 15th June 1990, respectively.
Aside from the sub-par legal counsel provided to
Minister Shabaka at Trial, there are a number of issues which are
also quite disturbing, and these are:
The only relative evidence which links Minister
Shabaka to the crime of shooting Mr Dennis Eugene Hill, by way of
four gun shot wounds to the torso, is his former street name, which
there is evidence of another Afro-American male, who likewise used
the moniker “Bandit” and had relation to the case of which Minister
Shabaka has been wrongfully convicted.
There is no physical or forensic evidence which
links Minister Shabaka to the homicide of Mr Hill. Furthermore, the
initial suspect description was more consistent with “Bandit” than
that of Minister Shabaka.
Minister Shabaka was convicted on highly suspect,
unreliable and conflicting testimony of persons claiming to have had
knowledge of the immediate events of May 19, 1989 (when the homicide
of Mr Hill occurred), all of which raise the element of “Beyond
Reasonable Doubt”, e.g. the witnesses opposed to the factuality of
Minister Shabaka’s innocence have testified that the man who
committed the actual murder wore Khaki pants, or blue jeans, or
black shorts.
Governor Henry, this conflicting testimony
concerning the clothes the shooter wore at the time of shooting Mr
Hill strongly indicates that the witnesses were not observing the
same person, or the person whom they identified as the defendant (Minister
Shabaka) on the crowded street in the middle of the night at the
time of the murder. This completely unreliable, highly conflicting
testimony was the only evidence that Mr Robinson (Minister Shabaka)
is involved in this crime at all. The murder weapon was never
located.
The Investigating Officers never recovered any spent shells
or projectiles (Tr. p 377). Minister Shabaka never confessed.
Clearly, had the jury been provided with information that there was
another young Afro-American male from Los Angeles in the area, who
went by the name “Bandit”, the seemingly conflicting, unreliable
presented by the State would have made sense. There is no possible
way for Minister Shabaka to have been the person in each clothing
description given to Oklahoma City Police Technical Investigators
Mike Jones and Rhett Brotherton.
What makes this matter all the more
disturbing is the Prosecutor Mr Robert H Macy claimed to the jury
that such conflicting testimony of clothing description was
insignificant, and that what was material was that they identified
Minister Shabaka as the shooter.
This is not a forum for retrying the case and the
injustices Minister Shabaka suffered are all too many for them to be
accommodated here, however we feel it highly significant that there
was conflicting testimony, for it raises questions as to whether the
“witnesses” were actually witnesses at all or did they in fact see
another person? Some witnesses gave testimony of the shooter going
in one direction, while others said that he went in the other
direction, indicative of two persons (Tr. p 330, 346, 499). The
question in light of fairness so that justice may prevail is which
of these witnesses gave truthful testimony? The Courts have failed
to resolve this issue as they feel it is insignificant. We would
like to think that with your analytical eye and concern for justice,
you will consider this point of concern which casts doubt on
Minister Shabaka being the man identified in the various clothing
descriptions.
We find it well within reason to question the
legitimacy of Minister Shabaka’s conviction, particularly in light
of the fact that State Witness Devera Johnson claimed to have seen
Minister Shabaka once in her entire life for a period of no more
than 60 seconds prior to Mr Hill’s death. She admitted to the Court
that on the night of Mr Hill’s death the lighting conditions were
poor, that it was very dark.
She told the Court she didn’t drink
beer the night of the murder, however after being further pressed,
she confessed she had in fact drunk beer in the early hours of the
morning leading to the murder. And under strained conditions she
somehow sees the shooter and overhears loud voices.
Ms Johnson
claimed to be an eyewitness and had spent the morning and day with
Mr Hill. We find this to be highly unlikely in light of the
uncontested testimony of the Prosecutions witness Mr Rohnie Synder,
who personally knew “Bandit” and was the best friend of Mr Hill for
over ten (10) years, and his partner in the drug business. Mr Synder
clearly established for the Court record that he was in fact in
front of Hill’s front yard with Hill at 9.30 a.m. on May 18 1989 (Tr.
Prlm. Hr. p141) and met with “Bandit” at that time, remaining with
him until approximately 1.30 or 2.00 p.m. (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p 159). And
he was with “Bandit” when he purchased a .357 wood-handled Magnum (Tr.
Prlm. Hr. p 155-6) from a Mr William Dial. More importantly, Mr
Synder testified that Minister Shabaka (Robinson) was NOT the person
“Bandit” who he and Mr Hill had interactions with on May 18 and May
19 1989. At the Preliminary Trial Hearing Mr Synder testified that
the defendant Walanzo Robinson was not “Bandit” (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p
142-3). Mr Synder stated this fact three times. The transcript of
this part of the Preliminary Trial Hearing records the following:
Mr Ackley (Deputy District Attorney): “Okay, is
Bandit in this room today?”
Mr Synder: “No, Sir.”
Mr Ackley: “Okay, specifically, this man in the
red jump suit with a yellow pencil in his ……. You ever seen that man
before (indicating)?”
Mr Synder: “Sir, no, Sir.”
Mr Ackley: “Never seen him before in your life,
is that right?”
Mr Chris Box (Attorney for Minister Shabaka):
“Objection, asked and answer.”
The Court: “Overruled.”
Mr Ackley: “Never seen this man before in your
life, Sir?”
Mr Synder: “I may have seen him before, Sir.”
Mr Ackley: “But that is not the man that
introduced himself to you as Bandit on May 18?”
Mr Synder: “No, Sir.”
This was highly important testimony and viable
evidence which establishes that there was no possible way for Ms
Devera Johnson to have been with Mr Hill on the morning and day of
May 18; and it makes a distinction between “Bandit” and Minister
Shabaka by way of the fact that Mr Synder personally knew “Bandit”.
The question for any fair minded person, (particularly in such a
serious matter as this of a man facing the prospect of being
executed based upon witness testimony) arises which of the two State
subpoenaed witnesses on this specific issue of May 18 - May 19 is
telling the truth?
It is apparent Mr Synder’s testimony weakened the
Prosecution’s case, and so he was dropped from their witness list
and was not summoned to Trial on behalf of the State. Ms Johnson’s
claims were favored even though her accounts of what happened were
vague to say the least, giving no name as to the alleged person who
was supposed to have been with her in the car with Mr Hill, nor the
name of persons they each visited. Mr Synder gave a detailed account
of activity on which he, Mr Hill and “Bandit” were engaged; and the
established time-line for their activities could not provide an
opportunity for Mr Hill to have been with Ms Johnson.
To say
otherwise is to proclaim an impossibility. Because of the problem of
conflicting testimony from two State witnesses, it is understandable
why the Prosecution dropped Mr Synder as a State witness. However
when justice is at stake the conflicting testimonies must be
resolved; either one is correct, or both are lying. There is no
middle ground.
Minister Shabaka’s legal counsel did nothing to
remedy this matter. In fact he failed to bring this conflicting
testimony to the attention of the jury. Plainly this was vital
evidence.
The failure to raise such fundamentally important evidence
falls below any reasonable standard of competency. There was no
physical evidence linking Minister Shabaka to the crime.
There was
no confession. The only evidence linking Minister Shabaka to the
crime was the testimony of the witnesses. Eliciting testimony that
Minister Shabaka (Robinson) was not the individual some witnesses
named as the shooter would have cast doubt on the eye witness
identification.
This raises, at the very least, the probability that
the result of the proceedings would have been different if this
evidence had been used at Trial. Mr Box, the Defendant’s Attorney,
fell pray to a fundamental misunderstanding of the vital importance
of Mr Synder’s testimony.
Or worse, he deliberately undermined the
significance of this testimony which strengthens the fact that
Minister Shabaka is innocent! We believe that the latter is correct,
particularly when considering that there could have been filed a
motion to retry the case stemming from Prosecutorial misconduct or
violation of a Motion in Limine to prohibit the State from eliciting
testimony, during first Stage, in relation to Mr Robinson’s gang
affiliation (Tr. p 14-16).
The State agreed not to raise the issue
during first Stage, and on the basis of the parties’ agreement, the
Court sustained the motion (Tr. p 16). None the less, the State
elicited such testimony on two occasions, and Mr Box failed to
object.
The Hon Judge Blasdel even had concern enough to suggest
that Mr Box motion the Court for a Mistrial. At one point the Court
on its own Motion called the parties to the bench (Tr. p 479)
regarding an improper statement of witness Mr Carolina, who should
have been admonished. Mr Box had an opportunity to Motion for
Mistrial particularly when considering that the Court brought the
matter to the attention of the parties. Mr Box requested that the
State move on and informed the Court he did not intend to make a
Motion for Mistrial as he didn’t “think it’s appropriate” (Tr.
p480).
This critical matter was not brought to the
attention of Minister Shabaka to see if he would favor or not a
Motion for Mistrial. At another crucial phase of Trial, Mr Box could
have objected to highly prejudicial testimony of a Los Angeles
Police Officer Mr Dan Matthieu in which there was sufficient cause
to Motion the Court for Mistrial.
Subsequently there was an off the
record discussion, without Minister Shabaka, in which Mr Box
explained to Judge Blasdel one of the reasons was "I “d not want to
run the risk of possibly having to retry this case in the future, so
I want to make it perfectly clear for the record why an objection
wasn’t logged in the matter” (Tr. 549). This decision not to object
or make a Motion for Mistrial was not a strategic decision, but
rather a decision based on self-interest.
A shame without apology,
he failed to advocate zealously for Minister Shabaka because he
wanted to avoid the time and effort that might be involved in
possibly re-trying the case. It makes one wonder how much time and
effort was devoted to preparing a defense for Minister Shabaka in
light of the betrayal to be his advocate against an already very
weak case? Mr Box did more so to help the Prosecution than his own
client.
Perhaps he maintained deep-rooted affection for Mr Macy (the
District Attorney) as he (Mr Box) was once the Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney. And it was noted at the conclusion of the Trial, Mr Macy
warmly patted Mr Box on the shoulder, as if to say “congratulations,
job well done for us.”
This, we suspect, is why he never motioned for a
Mistrial, even at the instance when a witness remark inflamed the
jury. Mr Box told the Court “Maybe if Counsel just move on to
another question…. I’m not going to make any Motion for a Mistrial…”
(Tr. p480).
We take note that the person in Oklahoma City
prior to Minister Shabaka’s having visited Oklahoma who referred to
himself as “Bandit” was actually called Keith. This is highly
significant in relation to the early morning hours of May 19, for it
was a person named Keith, probably in haste or panic, using his real
name instead of the alias “Bandit”, placed a phone call to be picked
up from the crime scene area (Prlm Tr. Hr. of Mikeal Airhartt, page
78, testimony of Brenda Finley -
Q: “How did you find out that there was a problem
that morning?”
A: I received a phone call.”
Q: "And who called?”
A: “A guy named Keith or Keithy or something like
that called me.”
And furthermore it is this Keith whose
description on the police report better described him than the 18
year old Minister Shabaka who in no way looked in his early
twenties.
Governor Henry, we would also like you to take
note that initially there was nothing of note to substantiate even a
resemblance of guilt to Minister Shabaka. The witnesses’ testimony
primarily pointed toward suspicion at best, while others cleared
him. Case in point, at Trial the Prosecutor informed the jury that
Minister Shabaka confessed to killing Mr Hill to two women i.e.
Opothleyahola Hudson and Johnida Hudson. But the facts are
established that at no time in the original interview by Officers
Mike Jones and Rhett Brotherton had either women claimed Minister
Shabaka to have expressed anything remotely close to shooting or
having killed Mr Hill (Tr. p446-7).
Nor to Detectives King or
Mitchell a month or two later in the Oklahoma City Jail (Tr. p535-6,
p544-5). In fact Johnida Hudson said that Minister Shabaka entered
their home to get his coat and guns from the sofa, and said he’d be
back. No mention was ever made of knowledge as to the shooting that
had taken place while he was at the doorstep knocking on the door of
the Hudson’s home.
However, after being visited by the Prosecution
while being in jail, their respective testimony changed to one of
conflict with what was established in the police report and at
Preliminary Hearing, from that of Minister Shabaka making non-
incriminating statements to that of a full indictment to confession
(Tr. 452). It is highly disturbing to know that perjury was allowed
to instigate guilt of an innocent man.
Governor Henry, we recognise that Minister
Shabaka was influenced by a sub-culture that prohibited his
co-operation with law enforcement, as pointed out vividly in the
web-page “The Condemned, Innocent”. But such silence should not be
held against him in light of the mismanagement of Trial issues by Mr
Chris Box, nor the fully established lies of certain witnesses, each
aiding in this unjust conviction.
In view of this crime against
Minister Shabaka, we cannot be overtly critical that the Courts have
reasonably become target for speculation as to if it is only
one-sided in its examination of Appeals, that side being
pro-Prosecution. Such would be bias from the inception of
endeavoring to litigate legitimate issues for fair review toward
finality based upon relevant facts to all claims raised.
No doubt the case of Minister Shabaka raises
concern toward the level of fairness provided him by the Oklahoma
Courts as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit. Even these places of Law are prone to making incorrect
decisions, particularly when they have permitted procedural bar at
relevant issues needed to establish the facts of a particular issue;
and many a time Appeals themselves are grossly mismanaged by
Appellant Counsel.
It is not our intention to challenge the Death
Penalty in this instance, but rather to bring attention to critical
areas that show that the ultimate legalized punishment should not be
administered in the case of Minister Shabaka, having so many
unresolved issues as to credibility of evidence and witnesses.
We appeal to your sense of judgement, could you
honestly not conclude that there is substantial doubt as to the
guilt of Minister Shabaka upon review of the Court documentations of
Preliminary Hearing in conjunction to the testimony of Mr Synder and
the apparent changes in testimony of the Hudson sisters; and there
being motive for persons such as Brenda Finley to testify against
Minister Shabaka favorably for the Prosecution; and coupled by lack
of physical evidence, no confession and a doctored up case theory,
it is flat out wrong to permit an Execution in light of the
aforementioned, which are not limited to that.
Minister Shabaka is at the last stage of his
Appeal which we have no faith the United States Supreme Court will
reasonably review the issue to be addressed before them. As was the
case at the 10th Circuit in their reviewing of his claims for nine
(9) months, only to reject them in an unpublished 14 page opinion (Jan
04 2002 No. 99-6438; D.C. No. CIV-97-588-C/W.D.Okla.) which is
frightening to say the least of their unwarranted conclusions! And
even here we are mindful that it had previously been the position of
Minister Shabaka’s Appellant Counsels and himself to challenge the
credibility of the States case and subsequent conviction, with
emphasis on a New Trial as room to press for exoneration as opposed
to mere modification of sentence to life imprisonment.
The current
level of Defense he’s been receiving for over two years has made
effort to “save his life” not by exoneration, rather by modification
based upon thorough challenging of the only aggravator which has him
on Death Row, i.e. Heinous, atrocious, cruel (H.A.C.). An aggravator
which is not factual to the circumstance of the crime in which
Minister Shabaka has been wrongfully convicted.
Though we applaud
the diligence of Minister Shabaka’s Federal Public Defender for
contesting the H.A.C. issue, we do not minimize the fact that he was
permitted seven (7) months to prepare the Brief of Minister Shabaka
for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in
which only three (3) weeks were used due to a full case load and
being heavily swamped by cases of critical import, some pending
imminent execution. In three (3) weeks time there was simply no way
possible to give fair attention to all the issues granted on the
Application for Appealability to the 10th Circuit, this being so his
most important issues toward possible exoneration were dropped, and
as such Minister Shabaka’s claim has suffered irreversible damage.
His Appellant Counsel didn’t have confidence they
could fully develop said issues in the three (3) week period, or
because he didn’t think the issues would get Minister Shabaka relief
in light of procedural bars already dictating as to how they could
navigate their propositions to the Court.
Even on Minister Shabaka’s Actual Innocence claim
which the 10th Circuit granted on the Application of Appealability,
his Federal Public Defender dropped the issue but noted to the Court
in response to the A.G.’s comment regarding the drop of this very
significant claim: “Further, at the present stage of litigation, the
issue of actual innocence is relevant only to the consideration of
whether an appropriately placed procedural bar should be set aside
in favor of reviewing a claim based on Constitutional error. Because
this claim was barred improperly by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals and the federal district court, the bar should not be relied
on by this Court to preclude a merits review.
Consequently, Appellees assertion regarding Mr.
Robinsons actual innocence claim are misplaced. See Brief of
Appellee at 14-15.
“Because Mr. Robinson pursued his claim properly
on post-conviction by raising the claim and requesting an
evidentiary hearing, he is entitled to a merits review of the
instant proposition. Such review has never been afforded and this
Court should correct that error. The error should be remedied by
remanding this case to the district court for a full and fair
evidentiary hearing….”
Appellant’s Reply Brief In The United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, December 8, 2000, pages
9-10.
Governor Henry, we recognise that the Oklahoma
scheme toward clemency commences first by way of a favorable review
and recommendation by the Assigned Clemency Board, they then pass
their findings and conclusions to you for review and final approval
or rejection of the request to grant clemency. Minister Shabaka’s
Appeals have not been finalized; technically however there is not
scant chance he’ll have a favorable ruling at the United States
Supreme Court.
It is the consensus of FASOMS to petition your
administration for involvement in preventing the Execution of an
innocent man, or at the very least, a man convicted of a crime which
raises numerous questions as to the legitimacy of his imprisonment
considering the vague evidence against him and unreliable testimony
of witnesses which (questionably) favored the Prosecution, though
most being at one time favorable to clearing Minister Shabaka.
We
pray that you see, even under the conviction at present, Minister
Shabaka is not deserving of being subject to Court Sanctioned
Execution. He has redeeming value and this was apparent to some
extent by jurors who could not conclude him to be a continuing
threat to society, though the Prosecutor attempted to convince them
otherwise. There was simply non-existent evidence to sustain the
mischaracterization of Minister Shabaka’s person.
Governor Henry, we know that Minister Shabaka is
a humbled and devout adherent of the Islamic faith, but in view of
the terrorist attack of 9/11, we realise that misplaced American
patriotism would demand the killing of any Muslim on Death Row
irrespective of why they are there. We appeal to your sense of honor
and fairness to not be won over by such sentiments. Avenging the
9/11 terrorist attacks should not be toward one who has no relation
to such evil, and because it is assumed the measure was by way of a
religious decree. Minister Shabaka opposes terrorism. And we feel
you should have no bias towards him because he is a Muslim.
We would like you to strongly consider looking
into the matter of Minister Shabaka’s confinement. This is his first
time in prison, which we are convinced is circumstantial due to a
wrongful conviction, that having been said there lies nothing of
record to remotely suggest Minister Shabaka has forfeited his right
to life. And his entire while in prison he has managed under strict
discipline and caused no problems to the Administration even in
light of the peaceful protest of June 16 1993 contesting deplorable
prison conditions and poor quality of food distribution.
The case before you is deserving of your
attention and to decide favorably on behalf of FASOMS. The Petition
to Stop the Execution of Minister Shabaka would in no way compromise
your firm stance favoring Capital Punishment, but shows you have a
love for the maintenance of Justice; and definitely the execution of
Minister Shabaka would be a grave injustice.
We are confident that Minister Shabaka can best
articulate the injustice against him, and even if you oppose the
idea of listening to a Condemned Prisoner, we think it wise of you
to at least organize a small investigation team to speak with him
regarding his claims of innocence. This the Prosecution failed to
do, and consequently oversaw the conviction of an innocent man.
In closing we would like to re-emphasise that we
pray you give fairness to this Petition. God’s grace be upon all
deserving of it.
We, the undersigned, have read the Petition to
Stop the Execution of Minister Shabaka, and strongly urge Governor
Brad Henry, the Oklahoma State Governor, to investigate his claims
of innocence and halt his execution.
Minister Shabaka was convicted without any
physical or forensic evidence.
Much of the witness testimony at his trial was
contradictory and highly unreliable.
The legal representation he received at his
trial, direct appeal and the preparation of Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus was not competent. An attorney with significant
experience of capital cases and appeals has examined the transcripts
of the trial of Walanzo Shabaka (formerly Robinson), and stated in
an affidavit that the performance of Walanzo’s court appointed trial
counsel was professionally unreasonable and legally ineffective.
For these reasons we urge Governor Henry to halt
the execution of Walanzo Shabaka, investigate his claims of
innocence, and stop an innocent man from going to the Execution
Chamber.
Min Walanzo Shabaka (Robinson), 189399 D/R
H-Unit, S.W. 3-1
Oklahoma State Penatentiary
PO Box 97
McAlester, Oklahoma 74502
Canadian Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty
What are your interests?
Studies in 1) Black political science; 2) African
and Asian history/politics; 3) psychotherapy; and 4) martial arts:
Yang Style Taijiquan and Jeet Kune Do.
What are some of your hobbies?
Writing about my life experiences in South
Central Los Angeles and expressing my thoughts in writing concerning
current events both political and international.
Do you have a religious preference? (optional)
I am a devout Muslim/Shia Ithna Ashari. My
religion is Shi'ite Islam.
What language(s) do you speak?
English (American Standard)
What qualities would you like to find in a pen
pal?
Honesty, trustworthiness, ... love for humanity,
open mindedness, ... and a profound love for God Almighty and who
has no bias toward Islam.
Would you prefer a pen pal who could visit you?
Yes.
Are you already writing to other people? If so,
how many?
Family members and a couple of close associates.
Other comments:
I do not wish to correspond with anyone who only
wants to discuss politics; and who does not look forward to placing
forth effort to establish a working/lasting friendship. And, no
offense, I do not care to correspond with gays or lesbians. Thank
you!
Robinson v. State,
937 P.2d 101 (Okl.Cr. 1997). (PCR)
Defendant was convicted in the District Court,
Oklahoma County, Bana Blasdel, J., of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to death. Defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal
Appeals, 900 P.2d 389, affirmed. Defendant applied for
postconviction relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Lane, J., held
that: (1) defendant waived constitutional claim concerning
misconduct and prejudice of jury; (2) defendant waived claim of
factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence; (3)
ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were not properly
raised on postconviction appeal; and (4) allegation of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel evidenced solely by failure to
present argument or claim on direct appeal was not enough for Court
to find that counsel was ineffective. Denied. Johnson, J., concurred
in result. Lumpkin, J., concurred in result with opinion.
Robinson v. State,
900 P.2d 389 (Okl.Cr. 1995). (Direct Appeal)
Defendant was convicted in the District Court,
Oklahoma County, Bana Blasdel, J., of first-degree murder and
sentenced to death. Defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal
Appeals, Lane, J., held that: (1) evidence sustained conviction; (2)
testimony using gang names was not highly prejudicial; (3)
prosecutor's statement that fatal shot was fired into victim's chest
was based on facts in evidence; (4) prosecutor's comment that
defendant's denial that he had .38 with him at time of murder
constituted an admission of guilt was fair comment; (5) prosecutor's
expressing opinion about defendant's guilt did not require reversal;
(6) evidence was sufficient for jury to find aggravating
circumstance that murder was heinous, atrocious or cruel; (7)
arresting officer's testimony that he was working the gang task
force did not inject evidentiary harpoon into proceedings; and (8)
counsel was not ineffective. Affirmed.
LANE, Judge:
Appellant, Walanzo Deon Robinson, was tried by jury and convicted of
the crime of First Degree Murder in violation of 21 O.S.1981, §
701.7, Case No. CRF-89-4791 in the District Court of Oklahoma County,
before the Honorable Bana Blasdel, District Judge. The jury
recommended the Appellant be sentenced to death, finding that
Appellant's murder of victim Dennis Hill was especially heinous,
atrocious or cruel. The trial court sentenced accordingly. On
appeal, Appellant raises seven propositions of error. We affirm the
judgment and sentence of the trial court.
In the early morning hours of May 19, 1989,
Dennis Eugene Hill was shot and killed on a street in northeast
Oklahoma City. He was twenty-six (26) years old and sold crack
cocaine for a living. The shooting took place in the vicinity of a
popular bar and area known for drug trafficking, so there were many
people present at the shooting, even though it took place between
1:30 and 2:00 a.m.
Earlier that evening, Hill and a man identified
as "Bandit" argued with each other over either money, drug turf or
both. According to eyewitness testimony, Bandit had a gun during
that confrontation. The final confrontation between the two men was
preceded by an argument over which of the two would get the other "busted".
As the argument ended, Bandit fired a warning shot into the ground
and Hill turned and ran. Hill was shot twice in the back, falling
forward into the street. Bandit walked over to Hill and shot him
twice more, once in the shoulder and once in the chest, while Hill
asked why Bandit was shooting him.
Testimony placed Bandit at the scene, identified
by no fewer than four witnesses. He was identified by name, clothing,
and physical description. Although there were some inconsistencies
in the clothing descriptions, Appellant was positively identified as
"Bandit" and as the person who shot Hill. Appellant fled to
California where he was arrested on September 7, 1989, on an
outstanding Oklahoma City murder warrant.
* * * *
Appellant made no secret of the fact that he
intended to retain his drug territory at all costs, even if that
meant killing Hill. He threatened Hill and purposely frightened him
into running from Appellant by firing his gun into the ground near
Hill's feet. He shot Hill as he ran, and, knowing that Hill was
trapped, calmly walked over and looked into Hill's face as he shot
him.
He leisurely walked away, confiding in witnesses that he killed
Hill for no other reason than that he was "talking shit".
Considering the manner of this killing, the suffering of the victim,
the attitude of the killer, and the pitiless nature of this crime,
we cannot say, construing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the state, that the jury's finding of the heinous, atrocious and
cruel aggravator was not supported by sufficient evidence.