Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
- Reporters:
- , , , ,
- Before:
- Benham
Appellant Michael Eugene Williams fatally shot the victim Jone Cheung on May 30, 2009, during an attempted armed robbery of Cheung’s restaurant. On August 18, 2009, appellant was indicted by a Richmond County grand jury for malice murder, felony murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. In October 2010, appellant moved the trial court to declare
1. Prior to April 29, 2009, a person who was convicted of murder could either be sentenced to death or life in prison with the possibility of parole. Life sentences without the possibility of parole were only imposed in those cases in which the State sought the death penalty.
State v. Ingram,
266 Ga. 324, 326 (467 SE2d 523) (1996); Daniel, Ga. Criminal Trial Practice § 26-42 (2011-2012 ed.). In 2009, the General Assembly passed Ga. L. 2009, p. 223, § 1 (or Senate Bill 13) which amended
Traditionally, it is the task of the legislature, not the courts, to define crimes and set the range of sentences. [Cits.] The legislature’s choice of sentence is insulatedfrom judicial review unless it is wholly irrational or so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. [Cit.]
Isom v. State, 261 Ga. 596 (1) (408 SE2d 701) (1991). See also Ortiz v. State, 266 Ga. 752 (2) (a) (470 SE2d 874) (1996) (quotingIsom, supra). The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that, outside the context of a death penalty case, there is no constitutional requirement for an individualized determination that a criminal punishment is appropriate. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 966, 995 (111 SC 2680, 115 LE2d 836) (1991) (affirming drug defendant’s mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole). Georgia courts have taken a similar position: “Unlike the decision to impose the death penalty, a determination that a defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole does not require a consideration of mitigating factors.” Ortiz v. State, supra, 266 Ga. at 753. Here, despite the fact that no individual determination was required for the purposes of sentencing appellant in a non-death penalty case, the trial court nevertheless allowed appellant to submit mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. Therefore, the argument that appellant’s sentencing lacked the trappings of constitutional due process, under either the state or federal constitutions, is unavailing. The trial court did not violate appellant’s due process rights by sentencing him to life without parole.
2. Appellant also contends that the sentence he received pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Notes
The charge of felony murder was vacated as a matter of law. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2011. The case was docketed to this Court’s January 2012 term for a decision to be made based on the briefs.
Pursuant to
State v. Ingram, supra, 266 Ga. at 326.