871 S.E.2d 423
S.C.2022Background
- In 1999 Richard Bernard Moore shot and killed convenience store clerk James Mahoney during an armed robbery; Moore was captured shortly after with the store's moneybag and cash.
- A jury convicted Moore of murder, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during a violent crime, and assault with intent to kill; the jury found three statutory aggravating circumstances and recommended death.
- This Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2004 after performing the statutory comparative proportionality review and citing four comparator death-penalty cases.
- Moore’s PCR and federal habeas petitions were denied; the Fourth Circuit affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Moore filed a state habeas petition alleging his death sentence is disproportionate and challenging the scope of this Court’s comparative proportionality review (inviting reconsideration of State v. Copeland).
- The South Carolina Supreme Court clarified that comparative proportionality review need not be limited to cases where death was imposed (contrary to Copeland) but denied Moore habeas relief on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore's death sentence is disproportionate to penalties in similar cases | Moore: his case is less egregious (entered unarmed; "robbery gone bad") and therefore disproportionate compared with other death-eligible cases | Commissioner: proportionality review during direct appeal was sufficient; sentence not disproportionate | Court: Moore failed to show disproportionateness; sentence not vacated |
| Whether "similar cases" for § 16-3-25(C)(3) must be limited to cases where death was imposed | Moore: Copeland’s universe (death-only) is too narrow and biased; courts should consider life or other sentences | Commissioner: Copeland and precedent properly limit the pool to death cases | Court: Copeland is clarified/modified — statute does not limit comparators to death-only cases; courts may consider other sentenced cases with available records |
| Whether a statutory proportionality-review claim is cognizable in state habeas | Moore: inadequate statutory review implicates constitutional due process and merits habeas | Commissioner: Habeas limited to constitutional claims; statutory argument not cognizable | Court: Claim implicates due process (statutorily-mandated review); habeas is cognizable, but Moore did not meet the Butler standard for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572, 300 S.E.2d 63 (S.C. 1982) (originally interpreted "similar cases" to begin with other death sentences)
- Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1984) (distinguishes traditional proportionality from statutory comparative proportionality review)
- Walker v. Georgia, 555 U.S. 979 (U.S. 2008) (Justice Stevens’ statement urging consideration of similarly situated defendants not sentenced to death)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976) (approve revised capital schemes that include comparative proportionality as an important safeguard)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1972) (found arbitrary administration of death penalty unconstitutional, prompting reforms)
- State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 716 S.E.2d 895 (S.C. 2011) (expressed concern that restricting comparators to death cases risks a self-fulfilling proportionality result)
- State v. Motts, 391 S.C. 635, 707 S.E.2d 804 (S.C. 2011) (recognizes the Court’s statutory duty to review capital sentences cannot be waived)
- State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 479 S.E.2d 57 (S.C. 1996) (one of the comparator cases relied on in Moore’s direct appeal)
- State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 476 S.E.2d 903 (S.C. 1996) (one of the comparator cases relied on in Moore’s direct appeal)
- State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 405 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 1991) (one of the comparator cases relied on in Moore’s direct appeal)
- State v. Patterson, 285 S.C. 5, 327 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 1984) (one of the comparator cases relied on in Moore’s direct appeal)