 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thompson12/17/2002
that he received a punishment outside of the statutory range. Defendant asserts that it was cruel and unusual punishment for the trial court to give him a lengthy sentence "considering the relatively minor nature of this offense that involved no injury to any person or destruction of property."
We first note that defendant "offered a plea of admitting habitual felon status." Thus, defendant has no right to appeal this issue because he failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty to habitual felon status in the trial court. State v. Young, 120 N.C. App. 456, 459, 462 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1995). We nevertheless treat the record and brief as a petition for a writ of certiorari and elect to grant review of the issue. Id.
"Any person who has been convicted of or pled guilty to three felony offenses in any federal court or state court in the UnitedStates or combination thereof is declared to be an habitual felon." N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 14-7.1 (2001). " egislation which is designed to identify habitual criminals and which authorizes enhanced punishment has withstood eighth amendment challenges." State v. Todd, 313 N.C. 110, 119, 326 S.E.2d. 249, 254 (1985).
Absent specific authority, it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence; rather, in applying the Eighth Amendment the appellate court decides only whether the sentence under review is within constitutional limits. In view of the substantial deference that must be accorded legislatures and sentencing courts, a reviewing court rarely will be required to engage in extended analysis to determine that a sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate. Only in exceedingly unusual non-capital cases will the sentences imposed be so grossly disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Ysaguire, 309 N.C. 780, 786, 309 S.E.2d 436, 440-41 (1983).
The purpose of the habitual felon status is to insure lengthier sentences for those persons who have repeatedly violated the criminal laws of this State. See State v. Hodge, 112 N.C. App. 462, 469, 436 S.E.2d 251, 255 (1993).
In State v. Aldridge, 76 N.C. App. 638, 334 S.E.2d 107 (1985), the defendant was convicted of possession of stolen property and received thirty years' imprisonment based on his habitual felon status. This Court held that the primary purpose of a recidivist statute is "to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that personfrom the rest of society for an extended period of time. This segregation and its duration are based not merely on that person's most recent offense but also on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes." Id. at 640, 334 S.E.2d at 108 (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382, 397 (1980))(alteration in original).
In the instant case, the role of this Court is only to decide whether the sentence under review is within the constitutional limits and not to consider "the relatively minor nature" of the offense, as argued by defendant. At trial, the evidence tended to show that defendant was (1) convicted in October 1995 for possession of cocaine; (2) convicted in November 1999 for possession of cocaine; and (3) convicted in June 2000 for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and deliver, thus providing the three felony offenses necessary to declare defendant an habitual felon. The trial court imposed a sentence which was within the statuto
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|