Opinion ID: 1327202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Proportionality of Lee's Sentence

Text: Lee contends in his cross-appeal that the habeas court erred in denying his claim that his death sentence was disproportionate and that it was imposed arbitrarily and capriciously because the way in which this Court conducts its proportionality review is unconstitutional and violates Georgia statutory requirements. The habeas court correctly found that portion of Lee's claim wherein he assert[ed] his death sentence [wa]s disproportionate was res judicata. See Lee v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 804, 514 S.E.2d 1. [W]e perceive no reason to re-examine the issue [of the proportionality of Lee's death sentence]. Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865(8), 871, 632 S.E.2d 369 (2006) (declining to re-examine proportionality on habeas corpus). See Davis v. Turpin, 273 Ga. 244(2), 539 S.E.2d 129 (2000) (same). The habeas court did not rule on the remaining portion of Lee's claim. However, as a review of the record shows that Lee failed to assert in his original petition, his amended petition, or his post-hearing brief a constitutional or statutory challenge to this Court's method of proportionality review as provided in OCGA § 17-10-35(c), it is waived. See Harris v. State, 114 Ga. 436, 438, 40 S.E. 315 (1901) (holding that a question that is not raised or passed upon in the lower court cannot be considered by a reviewing court). See also OCGA § 9-14-44 (stating that the contents of a habeas petition must clearly set forth the respects in which the petitioner's rights were violated). Even assuming this claim were not waived, the method by which this Court conducts its proportionality review satisfies Georgia statutory requirements and is not unconstitutional. Davis v. Turpin, supra, 273 Ga. at 245(2), 539 S.E.2d 129. See Gissendaner v. State, 272 Ga. 704(16), 532 S.E.2d 677 (2000). Accordingly, we order Lee's death sentence reinstated. Judgment affirmed in Case No. S09X1345 and reversed in Case No. S09A1344.