State v. Guthmiller7/16/2003
'advance[ ] the goals of criminal justice system in any substantial way.'" Id. at 1189. Throughout the States, legislatures enacting three strikes laws made a deliberate policy choice that individuals who have repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior, and whose conduct has not been deterred by more conventional approaches to punishment, must be isolated from society in order to protect the public safety. Though three strikes laws may be relatively new, our tradition of deferring to state legislatures in making and implementing such important policy decisions is longstanding. Weems, 217 US at 379, 30 SCt 544; Gore v. United States, 357 US 386, 393, 78 SCt 1280, 2 LEd2d 1405 (1958) ; Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808, 824, 111 SCt 2597, 115 LEd2d 720 (1991) ; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 US 263, 274, 100 SCt 1133, 63 LEd2d 382 (1980); Solem, 463 US at 290, 103 SCt 3001, 77 LEd2d 637 ; Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 US 957, 998, 111 SCt 2680 , 115 LEd2d 836 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Our traditional deference to legislative policy choices finds a corollary in the principle that the Constitution "does not mandate adoption of any one penological theory." Harmelin, 501 US at 999 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). A sentence can have a variety of justifications, such as incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, or rehabilitation. See 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 1.5, pp. 30-36 (1986) (explaining theories of punishment). Some or all of these justifications may play a role in a State's sentencing scheme. Selecting the sentencing rationales is generally a policy choice to be made by state legislatures, not federal courts.
Id. at 1187-88.
[ .] In the present case, the trial court imposed life in prison without parole. Considering the involved conduct, all the prior criminal conduct, his chronic drug addiction, and giving utmost deference to the legislature and the sentencing court; we conclude that Guthmiller's sentence does not appear grossly disproportionate. Since the sentence fails "to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends." Bonner, 1998 SD 30, , 577 NW2d at 580.
[ .] Guthmiller's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[ .] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur.
Notice:These opinions are subject to formal revision before official publication in the North Western Reporter.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|