Opinion ID: 1930879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: whether the trial court erred in sentencing king.

Text: ś 106. King was sentenced to five years and a $5,000 fine on the conspiracy count; thirty years and a $10,000 fine on the sexual battery count; and one year and a $1,000 fine on the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge. These sentences represent the maximum sentences for each crime, and the trial court ordered that the prison time be served consecutively. King, 67 years old, complains that this is, in effect, a life sentence. He contends that his sentences are unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the crimes charged.... ś 107. This Court has repeatedly held that the imposition of a sentence, if it is within the limits prescribed by statute, is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the appellate courts will not ordinarily disturb a sentence so imposed. Bell v. State, 797 So.2d 945, 950-51 (Miss.2001); Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 122 (Miss.1993); Reed v. State, 536 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss.1988); Boyington v. State, 389 So.2d 485, 491 (Miss.1980). In Bell, this Court stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the prerogative of the Legislature to determine the appropriate sentence for crimes, and we do not consider the statutory punishment of thirty years for the crime of sexual battery to be excessive, especially when the victim is a child of tender years. Child molestation has become rampant in our society, and due to the nature of the offense, the emotional (and sometimes physical) harm to the child victim is irreparable. 797 So.2d at 950-51. ś 108. King also argues in this issue, and repeatedly throughout his brief, that it was unfair for Gary Bates to receive a lesser sentence. He argues that although Bates made the only admission of sexual battery in this case, the trial court chose to let Bates go relatively free, and King will die in prison. This recurrent argument overlooks the fact that, unlike either King or Dooley, Bates confessed to his crimes, pled guilty, and testified for the State. A reduced sentence was therefore proper for Bates. ś 109. Moreover, the evidence showed without dispute, save the biased testimony of Dooley, that King was the instigator and orchestrator of all of the crimes involved in this case. The State argues that, [g]iven the detestable nature of the crimes involved herein, the statutory maximum wasâ if anythingâ to lenient for King. It goes on to quote Matthew 18: 2-7, which states: And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! This authority, while worthy of the highest personal attention, is not a proper source of consideration for this Court, for we do not judge men; that is for the Highest Court. We pass upon facts as measured by the law, and must at all times retain our equilibrium, to see that the shields erected after centuries of experience to prevent miscarriages of justice are maintained. King v. Kelly 243 Miss. 160, 175, 137 So.2d 808, 814 (1962). ś 110. Nothing in the record or presented by King warrants reversal or reduction of his sentence. It is within the statutory limits, and it is a just punishment for the despicable crimes for which he was found guilty by a fair and impartial jury. ś 111. This assignment is without merit.