The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the death sentence of Ronnie Eugene Fuston, who was convicted of murdering Michael Rhodes. The court ruled on August 21, 2026, that Fuston’s claims regarding due process violations and intellectual disability did not warrant relief. This decision impacts Fuston, the victim’s family, and the broader legal landscape surrounding capital punishment and mental health considerations in criminal cases.
Fuston was convicted for the murder of Rhodes, who was shot three times while sitting on a couch next to his three-year-old daughter. The shooting occurred during a gang dispute. Fuston’s conviction was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), prompting him to seek federal habeas relief, which was denied by a district court. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling confirms that Fuston will remain on death row.
Background
Ronnie Fuston was involved in a violent incident that led to the death of Michael Rhodes in October 2012. Fuston, along with gang members, broke into Rhodes's home, believing that a relative of Rhodes was there. During the home invasion, Fuston shot Rhodes multiple times. The incident was part of a gang conflict, and Rhodes was an innocent victim caught in the crossfire.
After his conviction for first-degree murder, Fuston appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. He also contended that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to assess his intellectual disability under the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia. The OCCA denied these claims, leading Fuston to seek federal habeas relief.
The Ruling
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law. The court emphasized that Fuston’s argument for a lesser-included offense instruction was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court noted, "The OCCA’s determination that the evidence would not have permitted a rational juror to find Fuston guilty of second-degree murder and acquit him of first-degree murder was a reasonable evaluation of the facts presented at trial."
Regarding the intellectual disability claim, the court found that Oklahoma law stipulates a defendant is not considered intellectually disabled if they have an IQ score above 75. Fuston presented varying IQ scores, including one above the threshold. The court ruled that the OCCA’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing was consistent with established law, stating, "We find that Atkins and its progeny do not clearly establish that a defendant who presents multiple IQ scores... must receive an Atkins hearing."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for capital punishment cases, particularly those involving claims of intellectual disability. It reinforces the legal standards that govern how courts assess such claims and the evidence required to support a lesser-included offense instruction. The decision also underscores the challenges faced by defendants in capital cases when arguing for jury instructions based on alternative charges.
For Fuston, this ruling means he will continue to face the death penalty. The decision may also have a chilling effect on future defendants who may seek similar claims, as it sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of evidence required for lesser-included offense instructions and the standards for intellectual disability assessments in capital cases.
What's Next
Fuston’s legal team may consider further appeals, including potentially seeking a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, details about any related cases or pending appeals were not available in the court filing.