I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - KA- 0 1 9 3 8 - S CT RONALD CHRI

SFOS TER a / k / a RON CH

RI SFOS TER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 02/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LE E J . HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : M I CH AE L R. F AR RO W STEVE W ALLA CE AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 31/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W e vaca t ed the death s ent ence of Ronal d Chri s Fos t erpur s uant t o the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n Rope rv. Sim m ons , and di r ect ed the C i r cui tC ourtof L ow ndes C ou nty t o resent ence F ost er t o li fe i n p ri so n w i tho ut the p ossi bil i ty o f par ole unde r M i ss. Co d e An n . § 9 9
- 1 9
- 1 0 7 ( Re v . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e c i r c u i tc o u rtc o mp l i e d wi th th a td i r e c t i v e . On
a p p e a l, F o ste r c h a llen g e s th e a p p lica b ili ty o f s e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 a n d a rg u e s th a t w e e rre d in notr es ent enci ng hi m undert he 1991 ver s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s capi t al m ur derst atut e, w hi ch

### 2

w o u ld req u ire a se n ten c e o f li fe w ith the p o ss ib ili ty o f p a ro le. B e c a u se F o ste r’s c a s e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d , an d b e c a u se w e p ro p e rly a p p lied M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 to Fost er ’ s cas e, the or derf r om the ci r cui tcourti s af f i rm ed. FACTS ¶2. R onal d C hr i s Fost er w as convi ct ed i n 1991 f or capi t al m urder w i t h the under l yi ng f e l o n y o f a rme d r o b b e ry a n d wa s s e n t e n c e d t o d e a th . He wa s s e v e n t e e n y e a r s o l d a tt h e t i me o f th e o ff

e n s e . W e a ff

irm e d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Fo ste r v . Sta te , 639 So. 2d 1263 ( M i s s . 1994) . Fost er subse quent l y br oughta mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on re lief, a rg u in g th a t h is d im in ish e d m e n tal c ap a c ity m a d e th e im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty
uncons t i tut i onal pur s uantt o the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n A t kins v. V irg in ia , 53 6 U . S . 30 4, 12 2 S . C t . 22 42 , 15 3 L . E d. 2d 33 5 (200 2). W e ad dress ed those cl ai m s i n Fo ste r v . Sta te , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ), an d d ire c ted th e c irc u it co u rt to conductan Atkins hear i ng on the i s s ue of Fost er ’ s m ent al r et ar dat i on. ¶3. I n the w ake of

the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n Rope rv. Sim m ons , 543 U . S. 551, 125 S. C t . 1183, 161 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 2005 ), w hich hel d thatthe appl i cat i on of the death pen al ty ag ai nstj uv enil e off end ers viol at ed the E i gh th an d F ou rt ee n th A m end m ents , w e gr ant ed a mot i on by the St at e of M i s si ssi ppi t o w i thdr aw ourm andat e f oran Atkins h e a rin g , v a c a ted F o ste r’s d e a th se n ten c e , an d d ire c ted th e L o w n d e s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt to s ent ence Fost ert o l i f

e w i thoutt he poss i bi l i ty of par ol e underM i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 107. Fo ste r v . Sta te , 2005 M i s s . LE X I S 476 ( M i s s . 2005) ; 95- D R - 00750- SC T . Fost erdi d n ot
r es pond t o the St at e’ s m ot i on f orr es ent enci ng and di d notf i l e a mot i on f

orr econs i der at i on

### 3

af t eri tw as gr ant ed. A f

t erthe cas e w as r emanded t o the ci r cui tcourt , Fost erf i l ed a mot i on f ora new sent enci ng hear i ng, al l egi ng t hatt hi s C ourt ’ s orde ri m pos ed an i m perm i s s i bl e ex pos tf act o s ent ence . T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed Fos t er ’ s m ot i on, f i ndi ng thati thad no d iscreti o n to co n side r th e p rop ri ety o f F o ster’s clai m . F o ster th en ap p ea led b o th this C o u rt ’s fi n a l ju d g m e n t a n d th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n fo r a s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 4 . O n a p p e a l, F o ste r a rg u e s th a t h is se n ten c e c o n stitu tes a n im p e rm iss ib le e x p o st fa c to puni s hm ents i nce the onl y s ent enci ng opt i ons avai l abl e underM i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 21 ( 1991) atthe t i m e of

s ent enci ng w er e dea th orl i f e w i th the pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. H e f

urther
ar gues t hat M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 107, w hi ch s t at es thati f the dea th penal ty i s deemed
uncons t i tut i onal , w e mustamend a def endant ’ s s ent ence t o l i f e w i t ho ut the pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e, i s notappl i cabl e bec aus e Rope rv. Sim m ons d id n o t d e e m a ll ap p lica tio n s o f th e d e a th pen al ty u nco nst i tuti on al , bu ton l y those i m po sed on j uv enil e off end ers . ¶ 5 . T h e S tate re sp o n d s th a t F o ste r is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m b rin g in g a n a p p e a l to th is C o u rt’s r e se n ten c in g o rd e r, sin c e h e d id n o t f ile a re sp o n se to th e S tate ’s m o tio n to re se n ten c e , an d th a t th e a p p lica tio n o f M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 p re se n ts n o e x p o st fa c to pr obl em, s i nce the st atute w as pas s ed on J ul y 1, 1982, year s bef or e Fos t er ’ s or i gi nal
s ent enci ng. I . W HE T HE R F OS T E R I S P RO CE DU RA L L Y B AR RE D F RO M CHAL LE NGI NG HI S S EN TE NCE .

### 4

¶6. T he tr i al c ourtw as c orr ecti n not i ng that i t had no di s cr et i on t o c ons i derFos t er ’ s ex pos tf act o cl ai m . T he exec ut i on of or der s i s s ued by t hi s C ourti s a pur el y m i ni s t er i al act , and lo w e r c o u rt s h a v e n o a u th o ri ty to a lte r o r a m e n d th e m . See , e. g. , Mis s . Com m ' n on Ju dicial P erf orm an ce v. S an ders , 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ). In ste a d , F o ste r’s c laim sh o u ld have be en r ai s ed i n a r es pons e t o the St at e’ s m ot i on t o thi s C ourtunder M i s s . R . A pp. P. 27( a) , or, i n the al t ernat i ve, i n a mot i on f orr econs i der at i on of

a mot i on underM i s s . R . A pp. P. 27( h) , ori n a mot i on f orr ehea r i ng unde rM i s s . R. A pp. P. 40, af t er w e g ra n ted th e S tate ’s m o tio n . H is fa ilu re to d o so b a rs h is c laim . In th e a lte rn a tiv e , h is
c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W H E T H E R T H E A P P L I C A T I O N O F M I SS. C O D E A N N . § 99- 19- 107 CO NST I TUTES AN EX POST F ACTO PUNI S HM ENT. ¶ 7 . F o ste r firs t as se rts th a t, afte r h is d e a th se n ten c e w a s v a c a ted , the o n ly o p tio n a v a ilab le t o thi s C ourtw as the i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence of

l i f e w i th the pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e underthe
v e rs io n o f th e c a p ita l m u rd e r s ta tu te in e ff e c t a t th e tim e th e c ri m e w a s c o m m itte d . See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 21 ( 1991) . H e ar gues thatno st atut e i n ef f ectatthe t i m e author i zed a
s ent ence of

l i f e w i thoutpar ol e, and thatthe s ent ence ther ef or e cons t i tut es a n uncons t i tut i onal ex pos tf act o puni s hm entunderA rt i cl e 3, Sect i on 16 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on and A rt i cl e 1, Sect i on 10 of t he U nit ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. T hi s cont ent i on m i s s t at es the app l i cable l aw . A tthe t i m e o f he co m m i tt ed the cri m e, F ost er w as equa l l y subj ectt o M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ), am e n d e d in 1 9 8 2 , w h ich sta tes th a t:

I n the eventthe death pe nal ty i s he l d t o be uncons t i tut i onal by the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourtorthe U ni t ed

### 5 S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt , the c o u rth a v ing juri sd ict ion o v er a p e rso n p re v io u sly se n ten c e d to d e a th sh a ll ca u se su c h p e rso n to be br oughtbef

or e the courtand the co urts hal l s ent ence s uch per s on t o i m pr i s onm entf orl i f e, and s uch pers on s hal l notbe el i gi bl e f orpar ol e. W h ere this st a tute g o v ern s a d efe n d an t’ s sen tenc e, i t plainly a u tho ri ze s a se n tenc e o f l if e w ith o u t paro le. T h ere fore , the o n ly q u esti o n is w h ethe r th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt ’s p ro h ib itio n o n th e e x e c u tio n o f j u v e n ile o ff e n d e rs fa lls w ith in th e s c o p e o f t h is s ta tu te . ¶8. T he l anguage of the st atut e i s cl ear ; i ti nt ends t o provi de f oran al t ernat i ve s ent ence f ora per s on w hos e dea th s ent ence has been de emed uncons t i tuti onal . T hi s C ourthas previ ou sl y addr es s ed the s cope of s ect i on 99-19- 107 i n A b ra m v. Sta te , 60 6 So . 2d 10 15 ( M i s s . 1992) . I n A br am , t hi s C ourthel d thatthe s t atut e w as appl i cabl e “f orthateventw hen ei therthi s Courtorthe U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourtm akes a w hol es al e dec l ar at i on thatthe d e a th p e n a lty in g e n e ra l, an d /o r o u r o w n sta tu to ry d e a th p e n a lty sc h e m e in p a rticu lar , is
uncons t i tut i onal . ” A br am , 606 So. 2d at1039. T he “w hol es al e dec l ar at i on” r equi r ements et outi n A br am i s extr aneous l anguage thati s unne ces s ary t o the appl i cat i on of the s t atut e. T he
s t atut e pr ovi des thatno one w hos e dea th penal ty i s rul ed uncons t i tut i onal m ay r ece i ve par ol e. T o th e e x ten t th a t A b r a m is in c o n sis ten t w ith th e p lain m e a n in g o f se c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 , itis her eby overrul ed. B ecaus e Fos t er ’ s death penal ty w as found uncons t i tut i onal by t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt ’ s rul i ng i n R oper , the appl i cat i on of sec t i on 99-19- 107 i s appr opr i at e. CO NC L US I ON ¶9. F ost er’ s chall eng e t o the app l i cat i on of sect i on 99-19-10 7 t o his case i s barr ed becau se he fai l ed to r ai se this i ssue before this C ou rtbefore the rem and for rese ntenci ng . B ecause

### 6

th is C o u rt a n d th e c irc u it co u rt c o rre c tly a p p lied M iss . C o d e . A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 in
res entenci ng F ost er, and becau se appli cat i on of the st atute i n n o w ay co nst i tutes an ex po st f act o puni s hm ent , ou r order r es ent enci ng Fost ert o l i f e i n pr i s on w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e i s af

f i rm ed. ¶ 1 0 . CO NV I CT I O N O F CA PI TA L M UR DE R A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS W I THOUT THE P OS S I BI LI TY OF P AROL E, AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. DI AZ, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY GR AV E S , J . E AS L E Y A ND L AMAR , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .

DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶11. B ecaus e I di s agr ee w i th overrul i ng pr i or pr ece dent and do not agr ee that M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ) a p p lies in th is c a se , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶12. T oday’ s “pl ai n m eani ng” i nt erpr et at i on of Sect i on 99- 19- 107 i s com plet el y atodds
w i th a r eadi ng of

the s t atut e thatthi s C ourtpr evi ou sl y s aw as “f ai r l y obvi ous . ” A br am v. S ta te , 606 So. 2d 1015, 10 39 (M i s s . 1992) ( “A l though ther e ar e no ca s es addr es s i ng the pr eci s e appl i cat i on of

§ 9 9
- 1 9
- 107, w e thi nk i tf ai r l y obvi ous thati ti s r es erved f orthatevent
w hen ei therthi s C ourtorthe U ni t ed St at es Supr em e C ourtm akes a w hol es al e dec l ar at i on that the d ea th p en alty in g en era l, a n d /or o u r ow n statu tory d ea th p en alty sch em e in p arti cu lar, i s uncons t i tut i onal . ”) . I n A br am , w e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 7 w a s a p p lica b le to a d efe n d an t w h o se d ea th se n tenc e h ad b ee n v ac ated u n d er E nm und v. Flor ida for fail u re to p ro v e a n in te n t to k ill. See E nm und v. Flor ida , 45 8 U. S. 78 2, 73 L. Ed. 2d 11 40 , 10 2 S.

### 7

C t. 3 3 6 8 (1 9 8 2 ), m odi

f i ed by Tis on v. Ari

z ona , 4 8 1 U .S . 1 3 7 , 9 5 L . E d . 2 d 1 2 7 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 1 6 7 6 (1 9 8 7 ) ( fi n d in g th a t p ro o f o f a n in ten t to k ill w a s n o t re q u ire d u n d e r th e E ig h th A m end m ent) . In this con t ext, w e foun d that Sec t i on 9 9-19-10 7 w as not appli cable because E nm und di d noti nval i date a s t atut ory s cheme i n w hol e ori n part , butm er el y s t i pul at ed a
m in im u m lev e l o f c u lp a b ili ty th a t h a d to b e fo u n d b y th e ju ry in o rd e r to im p o se th e d e a th penal ty. W e r ecogni zed thatt he sa vi ngs st atut e “i s notre as onabl y orl ogi cal l y i nt ended f or us e on a c as e by ca s e bas i s by tr i al court s orthi s C ourt . ” A br am , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 3 9 . ¶1 3. A cco r di ng l y, i t i s on l y w he r e the mec ha ni s ms f or i ns t i tut i ng the de a th penal t y ( t he
s t atut ory s cheme) ar e f

ound t o be uncons t i tut i onal thatthi s pr ovi s i on appl i es . Such w as the
cas e i n Fu rm a n v. G e o rg ia , w h ere the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtfou n d that G eo rg ia’s death penal ty s t atut es w er e uncons t i tut i onal . 408 U . S. 238, 33 L . E d 346 , 9 2 S . C t . 2726 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Th i s f

o r c e d o u rCo u rtt o i n v a l i d a t e a l l d e a th s e n t e n c e s b e c a u s e o u rs t a tu t o ry s c h e me w a s su b s ta n tia lly sim ila r to th e o n e in G e o rg ia . P e terso n v. Sta te , 26 8 S o. 2d 33 5, 33 8 (M i ss. 1 9 7 2 ); s ee al

s o Co w a rt v. Sta te , 2 7 0 S o . 2 d 3 5 0 (M iss . 1 9 7 2 ) (h o ld in g tha t b e c a u se th e d e a th p en alty w as u n co n sti tuti o n al un d er Furm an , th e d e fe n d a n t m u s t b e s e n te n c e d to lif e ). ¶14. B oth l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory and pr i orp recedent supp ortthi s i nterpr et at i on. O nce the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtrea ffi rm ed the u se o f th e d ea th pe n alty i n 19 7 6 , o u r L eg isl ature setabo ut am end i ng ou r death p enalty schem e t o co m ply w i th co nst i tuti on al requi rem ents . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -2 1 (1 9 7 7 ); G re g gv. G e o rg ia , 428 U . S . 1 53 , 4 9 L . E d. 2d 859, 96 S. C t . 2909 ( 1976) . W i th ourr evi s ed death penal ty s cheme, the Legi s l atur e al s o pas s ed the “tr i gger ” s t atut e “i n the eve ntthe dea th penal ty i s hel d t o be unconst i tut i onal . ” L aw s , 1977,

### 8

ch . 4 5 8 , § 5 . In li g h t of Furm an a n d th e tem p o ra ry su sp e n sio n o f c a p ital p u n ish m e n t, i t is
o n ly re a so n a b le to c o n c lu d e th a t th is s tatu te w a s in ten d e d to b e u se d in c a se o f a w h o les a le in v a lid a tio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty , w h e th e r th ro u g h fe d e ra l o r s ta te m e a n s . A br am , 606 So. 2 d a t 1 0 3 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ). ¶15. W i th the exce pt i on of the pr es ent cas e, thi s C ourt has nev er r ef err ed t o M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -19 -10 7 w h en v ac ati n g a d ea th se n tenc e o n th e b asis o f R oper . C om par e Fos ter v. Sta te , 200 5 M i ss. L E X IS 476 ( M i ss. 200 5) ( ci t i ng M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 7 -3-2 1 ) w ith E sk rid g e v. Sta te , 2005 M i s s . L E X I S 665 ( M i s s . 2005) (notci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97-3- 2 1 ); Mc G ilb e rr

y v. Sta te , 2005 M i s s . LE X I S 598 ( M i s s . 2005) ( notci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 7 -3 -2 1 ); D

y c u s v . Sta te , 910 So. 2d 1100, 1101 ( M i s s . 2005) ( notci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 21) . I n E s kr idge , w e s i m pl y r emanded the ca s e f orr e- s ent enci ng w i thoutm andat i ng a t erm . 2005 M i s s . L E X I S 665. W hi l e w e or der ed se nt ence s of l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i thout par ol e i n McG il

berr y and D y c us , thei rs ent enci ng heari ngs w er e conduc t ed af t erthe 1994
re v is io n to M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 - 3
- 2 1 a llo w in g fo r l if e w ith o u t p a ro le . McG il berr y v. S ta te , 8 4 3 S o . 2 d 2 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) ( 1 9 9 6 se n ten c in g ); D y c us , 910 So. 2d 1100 ( 1998
s e n te n c in g ). ¶16. F urtherm or e, w e have neverr ef err ed t o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 107 i n any case r emanded f

oran Atkins h e a ri n g . See S c o tt v. S ta te , 9 3 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Br o wn v. Sta te , 8 7 5 S o . 2 d 2 0 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Co n n e r v. Sta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); D oss v. Sta te , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Sn o w v. Sta te , 8 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Sm it h v.

### 9

S ta te , 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Ch a se v. Sta te , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); N eal v. S ta te , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Ca rrv. Sta te , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 9 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ); G o o din
v. Sta te , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d 9 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 849 So. 2d 95 ( M i s s . 2003) . Fost er w as gi ven the opportuni ty t o pr ocee d w i th an Atkins cl ai m , butt he or deral l ow i ng hi s hear i ng w as v ac ated i n li g h t of R oper . Fo ste r v. Sta te , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); Fos ter , 2 0 0 5 M is s . L E X IS 4 7 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). W h ile th is C o u rth a s n e v e r a d d re s s e d th e is s u e , I
w oul d al s o hol d thatt he tr i ggerst atut e does notappl y i n Atkins c a se s. T h is is c o n sis ten t w ith
ourr eas oni ng i n A br am thatM i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 107 ( R ev. 2000) s houl d notbe appl i ed on a “c as e- by- cas e” ba s i s as tr i al j udges i n A t kins cas es m us tm ake a f actual det erm i nat i on thata def endanti s ori s notm ent al l y r et ar ded. I f the tr i ggers t atut e does notappl y i n Atkins , th e n F o s te r s h o u ld b e a llo w e d to p ro c e e d w ith h is m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n c la im a s w e ll. ¶17 . O ur sent encing schem e at the t i m e of F ost er’ s sent encing provided tw o alt ernat i ves: d ea th an d li fe w ith the p o ssibil ity o f pa role. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-2 1 (R ev . 1 9 7 7 ). B e c a u se th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o t ru led th e d e a th p e n a lty u n c o n stitu tio n a l, M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 107 i s i nappl i cabl e, and Fos t er ’ s s ent ence s houl d r ef l ectw hatw as avai l abl e i n 1991. Forthe f or egoi ng r eas ons , I w oul d r ever s e the pr evi ous s ent enci ng or der and r es ent ence Fost ert o a t erm of l i f e. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.