Utah Supreme Court to consider Ronnie Lee Gardner case — again

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear oral arguments in the case of Ronnie Lee Gardner — marking the fourth time the state's high court will discuss the death-row inmate.

An order to "expedite review" was issued by Chief Justice Christine Durham in light of the current execution warrant authorizing a June 18 death by firing squad. In the order, she waived typical pre-briefing requirements to allow for oral arguments to be heard in the case on June 3.

The petition to the Utah Supreme Court is just one of many avenues Gardner is pursuing in an effort to avoid an execution that has now been pending for nearly 25 years.

Gardner has since appealed his sentence at every possible level, petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court three times and the Utah Supreme Court three times while also pursuing appeals in the state and federal court systems. Prosecutors believed Gardner had "exhausted" the appeals process, and they requested an execution warrant in March, which 3rd District Judge Robin Reese signed on April 23.

Since then, attorneys for Gardner have initiated four separate actions to prevent Gardner's execution: a motion to stay the execution pending an appeal; a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act in 3rd District Court; an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court (which will be heard June 3) and a commutation hearing with the Board of Pardons and Parole.

So far, however, none of those actions have resulted in delaying or canceling the scheduled execution date.

As of Thursday, the Board of Pardons and Parole had not yet decided whether to hold a commutation hearing to address a request to commute Gardner's sentence from death to life without the possibility of parole.

That objective — to have Gardner's death sentence changed — appears to be the objective of all the separate actions. Defense attorneys believe Gardner's due-process rights were violated at the time of his sentencing because they say he was not provided state funding for attorneys and experts to present mitigating evidence. They argue that the "excessive delay" in the appeals process of the case would classify an execution as cruel and unusual punishment. They also assert the belief of victim Michael Burdell's family and friends that Burdell did not believe in the death penalty.

In a response filed Thursday to the defense motion to stay the execution pending an appeal, prosecutor Tom Brunker said state law does not allow for an appeal to an execution warrant, only to a sentence.