GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf

Applicability of recidivist statutes to convicted

Info icon This preview shows pages 227–229. Sign up to view the full content.

applicability of recidivist statutes to convicted defendants, see Chewning v. Cun- ningham, 368 U.S. 443 (1962); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (1967); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992). 1234 Due process does not impose any limitation upon the sentence that a legis- lature may affix to any offense; that function is in the Eighth Amendment. Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 586–87 (1959). See also Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502 (1915). On recidivist statutes, see Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 623 (1912); Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481, 488 (1908), and, under the Eighth Amendment, Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980). 1235 337 U.S. 241 (1949). See also Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959). 1236 430 U.S. 349 (1977). 1237 In Gardner , the jury had recommended a life sentence upon convicting de- fendant of murder, but the trial judge sentenced the defendant to death, relying in part on a confidential presentence report which he did not characterize or make avail- able to defense or prosecution. Justices Stevens, Stewart, and Powell found that be- cause death was significantly different from other punishments and because sentenc- ing procedures were subject to higher due process standards than when Williams was decided, the report must be made part of the record for review so that the fac- tors motivating imposition of the death penalty may be known, and ordinarily must be made available to the defense. 430 U.S. at 357–61. All but one of the other Jus- tices joined the result on various other bases. Justice Brennan without elaboration thought the result was compelled by due process, id. at 364, while Justices White and Blackmun thought the result was necessitated by the Eighth Amendment, id. at 362, 364, as did Justice Marshall in a different manner. Id. at 365. Chief Justice Burger concurred only in the result, id. at 362, and Justice Rehnquist dissented. Id. at 371. See also Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (1991) (due process denied where judge sentenced defendant to death after judge’s and prosecutor’s actions misled de- fendant and counsel into believing that death penalty would not be at issue in sen- tencing hearing). 1238 438 U.S. 41 (1978). 2059 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED
Image of page 227

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

his trial testimony in deciding to impose a more severe sentence than he would otherwise have imposed. the Court declared that, under the current scheme of individualized indeterminate sentenc- ing, the judge must be free to consider the broadest range of infor- mation in assessing the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation; de- fendant’s truthfulness, as assessed by the trial judge from his own observations, is relevant information. 1239 There are various sentencing proceedings, however, that so im- plicate substantial rights that additional procedural protections are required. 1240 Thus, in Specht v. Patterson , 1241 the Court considered a defendant who had been convicted of taking indecent liberties, which carried a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sen- tenced under a sex offenders statute to an indefinite term of one day to life. The sex offenders law, the Court observed, did not make the commission of the particular offense the basis for sentencing.
Image of page 228
Image of page 229
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern