A man convicted of the 1989 rape and murder of a woman he said he met at a Tucson convenience store is not going to get to escape the death penalty.

In a unanimous ruling Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected claims by Christopher Spreitz that a trial judge did not properly consider the connection between his longstanding substance abuse and the murder when concluding that he should be sentenced to death. What that means, wrote Justice William Montgomery for the court, is that the sentence stands.

In fact, Montgomery noted, the Supreme Court had previously upheld the death sentence.

The only reason it came back to the justices is that a federal appeals court said the court had not used the correct standard in determining that Spreitz’s drug use should not be considered a “mitigating circumstance” in deciding whether to spare his life.

As a result, the Supreme Court went back over the case, looked at all the factors weighing for or against the death penalty, and concluded Monday that the original sentence of death is justified.

According to police reports, Ivy Mae Atherton, who was also known as Ruby Reid, left a bar about 11:30 p.m. on May 18, 1989 to walk to her nearby apartment. Her beaten and decomposed body was found three days later by a woman riding a horse in the desert near El Camino del Cerro and North Silverbell Road.

As it turned out, police had stopped Spreitz the night of the murder for unrelated reasons and found he had blood on his clothes. He said it was the result of a fight.

It was only after Atherton’s body was discovered that Spreitz became a suspect and was arrested. Police said he told them he met her that night at a convenience store, they went to the desert to party and got into an argument that ended when he raped her and hit her in the head with a rock.

Prosecutors had a different version, saying that Spreitz had abducted Atherton, stuffed her into the trunk of his car, and drove her to the desert where he raped and killed her.

Spreitz’s lawyer at the time asked jurors to convict him of a lesser charge, arguing that his client was drunk at the time and never intended to kill Atherton.

The jury disagreed and found him guilty of first-degree murder. Pima County Superior Court Judge William Sherill said the death sentence was appropriate, saying the killing was “especially cruel.”

That finding is crucial.

In Arizona, simply being convicted of first-degree murder does not automatically result in a sentence of death.

Instead, there needs to be a finding of at least one “aggravating circumstance.” That can be whether the crime was committed for financial gain, whether the victim was a police officer and whether the crime was committed in an “especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.”

At that point, a court needs to weigh whether there are sufficient “mitigating circumstances” to spare someone’s life. That list includes the age of the assailant, impaired capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct, and a history of alcohol and drug abuse.

In the new ruling Monday, the Supreme Court agreed that there was an aggravating circumstance.

“Whether during the drive to the desert, the initial beating, the sexual assault, while she was being dragged to where her body was discovered, or while she was being beaten in the head, with rocks, there was ample time during which (Atherton) was consciously suffering,” Montgomery wrote.

And it was not outweighed by mitigating factors.

“We conclude that the mitigation evidence is insufficient to warrant leniency in light of the significant weight of the especially cruel aggravating circumstance,” Montgomery wrote.