Title: McGilvery v. State
Citation: 540 So. 2d 41
Docket Number: 58279
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 1989

540 So. 2d 41 (1989) Sherman McGILVERY v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 58279. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 8, 1989. Thomas E. Schwartz, Gray, Montague &amp; Pittman, Hattiesburg, for appellant. Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by DeWitt Allred, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. En Banc. HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court: This case originally came to us on appeal in McGilvery v. State, 497 So. 2d 67 (Miss. 1986), in which McGilvery appealed his conviction in the circuit court of Forrest County of armed robbery and sentence to forty-five years. We affirmed his conviction but remanded for the circuit judge to justify by record the reason for the disparity in the sentence given McGilvery and the twenty-five year sentence imposed upon the co-defendant *42 Fitzgerald Tanner. According to McGilvery, Tanner was the trigger man in the robbery. At McGilvery's re-sentencing, the circuit judge made the following observations: Upon this record we must again remand. The circuit judge should document the criminal record of McGilvery in order that it can be meaningfully reviewed upon appeal, and should also document the criminal record of the co-defendant. The circuit judge is, of course, free to consider all other matters that he determines pertinent in sentencing. We reiterate it is not our purpose to instruct the able circuit judge as to the appropriate sentence. We do require that the disparity in the sentence between the defendants have documented justification of record. REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON, J., dissent. PITTMAN, J., not participating. ANDERSON, Justice, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. This case has now come before us twice on the issue of the disparity between McGilvery's sentence and that of his co-defendant. The majority seeks to conduct a proportionality review and yet does not do so. The trial judge apparently has said and done all that he feels able to say and do. At some point the *43 issue must be finally put to rest. Because we are not prepared to conduct a proportionality review, I would finalize the issue today and affirm. DAN M. LEE, P.J., joins this dissent.