 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. White8/31/2001
ognized by the court, in accordance with 13 V.S.A. § 2303(d)(8), is the State's proposition that " efendant is aware of his strength and is willing to use it against women, regardless of the circumstances." To support this proposition, the court referred to evidence presented by the State that defendant had previously pushed his mother-in-law against a wall and choked her, and that he had choked another woman while engaging in sexual intercourse with her.
The defense neither argued for, nor presented evidence of, any mitigating factors which it is authorized to do under 13 V.S.A. § 2303(c), (e). The court itself recognized only one -- the lack of a significant prior criminal history. The court found that defendant's prior criminal history consisted of a conviction for driving under the influence . Even though the court recognized defendant's lack of a significant prior criminal history as a mitigating factor, it concluded that its value as such was lessened by the fact that defendant had consumed alcohol just prior to the murder.
The court concluded that, based on its review of aggravating and mitigating factors, the aggravating significantly outweighed the mitigating and warranted consideration of imposition of a sentence greater than the statutory minimum of twenty years imprisonment. The court found that there was no prospect for rehabilitating the defendant, and absent rehabilitation defendant posed both a serious threat to public safety and a very high risk to reoffend. The court further noted that defendant "utterly and completely" denied any responsibility for the death, showed no remorse, and cared only about himself; " e is an extreme danger to the public." The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
In the trial court's sentencing memorandum, all of the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors were examined by the court. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 2303(c), (d). Review of the sentencing memorandum shows that all the factors which were ultimately relied upon by the court in its sentencing decision were supported by credible evidence. While we recognize that a punishment must be proportional to the offense charged and convicted, a conviction of life imprisonment is not out of proportion to murder. State v. Bacon, 167 Vt. 88, 97, 702 A.2d 116, 122 (1997) (in felony murder case, " iven the seriousness of the offense for which defendant was convicted, no sentence of imprisonment could be disproportionate") (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 n.15 (1983)). We perceive no error in the trial court's sentencing of defendant to life without parole for the commission of this murder.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|