State v. Webb1/25/2005
Submitted on Briefs: January 6, 2004
Charles Webb (Webb) was convicted in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Second Offense, in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA, a felony. Webb was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole pursuant to § 46-18-219, MCA. He appeals his sentence. We affirm the District Court.
There are four issues raised in this appeal:
1. Whether the exception to the mandatory minimum sentence provided in § 46-18222(3), MCA, was applicable to Webb's case.
2. Whether the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in § 46-18-219, MCA, violates Webb's procedural and substantive due process rights under the United States and Montana Constitutions.
3. Whether the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in § 46-18-219, MCA, violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under Article II, Section 22, of the Montana Constitution both on its face and as applied.
4. Whether the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in § 46-18-219, MCA, violates Article II, Section 28(1), of the Montana Constitution.
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2002, the State filed an Information charging Webb with Sexual Intercourse Without Consent pursuant to § 45-5-503, MCA, a felony, for raping a handicapped neighbor in Great Falls after attempting to kill her by breaking her neck. Webb later turned himself over to police custody, admitted to the crime, entered into a plea agreement and subsequently pled guilty. Webb had a prior conviction of sexual intercourse without consent, so his sentence was given pursuant to § 46-18-219, MCA, which provides that a person convicted of a second violation of § 45-5-503, MCA, must be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Webb appeals from this sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Trial judges are granted broad discretion to determine the appropriate punishment for offenses. State v. Hembd (1992), 254 Mont. 407, 411, 838 P.2d 412, 415. On appeal we will not review a sentence for mere inequity or disparity. Hembd , 254 Mont. at 411, 838 P.2d at 415. Rather, this Court will only review a criminal sentence for its legality; that is, whether the sentence is within statutory parameters. State v. Heath , 2004 MT 58, 8, 320 Mont. 211, 8, 89 P.3d 947, 8. A trial court's statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review to determine whether it is correct. Heath , 8.
Questions of constitutional law are subject to plenary review by this Court and the district court's interpretation of the law is reviewed for correctness. State v. Bedwell , 1999 MT 206, 4, 295 Mont. 476, 4, 985 P.2d 150, 4.
DISCUSSION
ISSUE ONE
Whether the exception to the mandatory minimum sentence provided in § 46-18222(3), MCA, was applicable to Webb's case.
Webb argues the District Court erred when it failed to adequately consider the exception found at § 46-18-222(3), MCA, to the mandatory minimum sentence of § 46-18219, MCA. The State argues the District Court properly considered the exception and found it did not apply because Webb did not commit the crime under unusual or substantial duress. We agree with the State.
Criminal sentencing alternatives are strictly matters of statute in Montana. State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115, 854 P.2d 336, 337. In 1995, the Montana Legislature amended § 46-18-219, MCA, to set a minimum sentence of life in prison without parole for a second conviction of any one of five enumerated offenses, including sexual intercourse without consen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|