Opinion ID: 1659705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the death sentence is disproportionate in this case considering the unique characteristics of william holly.

Text: Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3), in addition to reviewing the merits of those issues raised by the defendant, we are required to determine: (a) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (b) Whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's findings of a statutory aggravating circumstances as enumerated in Section 99-19-101; and (c) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Holly, reiterating arguments made in Issues XI and XII, supra, that the taking of a child's life transgresses the modern standard of dignity, asserts that the death sentence is disproportionate in his case. Since our decision in Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1976), however, we have upheld the imposition of the death penalty in the cases listed in the Appendix. Three of those cases involved seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds who committed crimes similar to those for which Holly was convicted. In Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1994), we upheld the death penalty in the case of Ronald Chris Foster, who at the age of seventeen, robbed a convenience store and fatally shot the store clerk in the head. Further, in the companion cases of Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645 (Miss. 1983) and Tokman v. State, 435 So.2d 664 (Miss. 1983), we found that the death penalty was not disproportionate for a seventeen-year-old and an eighteen-year-old, who together with a third young man, robbed and beat to death a taxi cab driver. Holly makes several general allegations that the death penalty is not appropriate where the defendant comes from a disadvantaged background or has a low I.Q., arguing that these factors should be considered as mitigating circumstances. The jury was instructed in Sentencing Instruction C-1 to consider a panoply of mitigating circumstances, which included: (1) The age of Defendant at the time of the crime. (2) As a child Defendant exhibited emotional and scholastic difficulties. (3) Single parent family. (4) Defendant lacked father figure. (5) Defendant endured lonely, isolated, depressed childhood. (6) Poor school functioning. (7) Exhibited low self esteem as child. (8) Lacked positive interactions as child. (9) Lacked significant positive parental figure. (10) Lacked guidance and nurturing as a youth. (11) Lacked social reinforcement based on positive behavior. (12) Family lacked financial stability. (13) Economic assistance from father nonexistent. (14) Exposed to physical abuse of mother by her partner. (15) Remorse on behalf of Defendant. (16) Acceptance of responsibility by Defendant. (17) Any other matter, any other aspect of the defendant's character or record, and any other circumstance of the offense brought to you during the trial of this cause which you, the jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. The jury found that these mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating factors when sentencing him to death. Given that the jury was afforded the opportunity to consider fully Holly's disadvantaged background and that the sentence is not disproportionate to that meted out to juveniles of his age who have committed similar crimes, we cannot say that the death penalty is disproportionate in this case.