Document: 358 U.S. 576 79 S.Ct. 421 3 L.Ed.2d 516 Edward Leon WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 124. Argued Jan. 21, 1959. Decided Feb. 24, Rehearing Denied March 30, See 359 956, 737. Mr. John A. Ladner, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Mac Q. Williamson and Sam H. Lattimore, Oklahoma City, respondent. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion 1 Upon his plea guilty to a charge kidnaping in District Court Tulsa County, Oklahoma, petitioner was sentenced death. On appeal, Criminal Appeals affirmed, Okl.Cr., 321 P.2d 990, certiorari sought on ground that sentence imposed violation Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution. We granted writ determine question. 357 925, 78 1378, 2 1369. The undisputed facts are June 17, 1956, within few hours after robbing filling station attendant eluding police an ensuing chase, forced way into automobile being driven one Tommy Cooke, young divinity student, as it stopped traffic light city, and, at gunpoint, Cooke drive beyond City County considerable distance through northeastern point dead-end road Muskogee where he shot killed him, then escaped car. 19, apprehended, soon afterward charged with murdering county. arraignment, entered not guilty, but during course trial November withdrew charged. He thereupon convicted life imprisonment State Penitentiary.1 Thereafter, December county Okl.Stat.1951, Tit. § 745.2 At arraignment January 1957, days before scheduled date trial, After interrogating make sure had voluntarily understood might be death upon it,3 court accepted adjudged crime Thereupon asked counsel if wished heard regarding imposed, replied preferred reserve statement until State's Attorney spoken. made statement—reading much from prepared recounting armed robbery following chase elusion police; reciting gruesome details murder County; stating petitioner's past criminal record shown files Federal Bureau Investigation;4 concluding request sentence. Counsel objected any reference already been could again lawfully considered imposing charge. court, expressing view 'proper advise all (occurring while petitioner) victim under control,' overruled objection. concluded, put evidence transcript sentencing proceedings case, extended rather than 4 thus fully hearing parties, deferred imposition two days. reconvening, called bar him whether correction Attorney. Petitioner answered did not, matters related were true.5 Thereupon, death, pronouncement judge said, among other things, 'which (had) stated (by counsel) which (petitioner had) admitted (involved in) this (of kidnaping), committed resulted victim, (all of) takes consideration * continuing thing.' 5 As stated, broad claim is these show determined Amendment. In support position makes, variously repeats, number arguments analysis come down three contentions: first, violated presentence procedure prescribed 22, §§ 973, 974 975, permitting unsworn record, also denied rights confrontation cross-examination; second, taking punished second time same offense; third, event 'disproportionate' earlier 'ultimate' murder. 6 Petitioner's contentions deprived legal fundamental fairness failing pursue formal procedures Oklahoma. That rejected those contentions. Sections 973—975 provide substance or verdict case extent punishment left suggestion either party there circumstances may properly taken view, aggravation mitigation punishment, may, its discretion, hold take thereon.6 held shall used discretionary that, events, waived their use statutes. construing statutes said: 'But, things clear provisions 973. First, pursuing method matter court's sound discretion. Second, further contingent state defendant.' (321 993.) It 'It contended 975 mandatory duty hear witnesses. But, we both (and that) (w)hen parties fail privilege thereof, some supplying necessary information judgment substituted instead.' This construction last resort must here. 7 requested suggested Nor suggest require offer aggravating circumstances. circumstances, cannot say right fact presentencing 8 Attorney's deprive cross-examination. have seen, when failed adducing crime, thereby 973—975, law authorized 'some (to) instead,' proper Moreover, statement, interrogation recitals true. Note 5. alone should complete answer contention. But go consider Court's Williams v. People New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337. dealt very similar once guilt accused has established, judge, determining kind restricted derived examination cross-examination witnesses open consistently Amendment, responsible 'out-of-court' relative person's characteristics. 9 These considerations record—all true 10 now contention offense. offense separately create define crimes murder7 kidnaping,8 evident terms they 'separate distinct offenses.' pleaded kidnaping, involved no substantially language statute. 2. object double jeopardy grounds courts preserve such point,9 instead became impose appropriate statute appropriate, required of, range term years maximum (see 2), exercise Necessarily, discretion '(t)he belief longer prevails every like category calls identical *.' supra, page 247, 1083. discharging sentence, authorized, required, mitigating crime. so declared Powell State, 94 Okl.Cr. 1, 229 230. Court, too, held. supra. Certainly commission. entitled circumstance, along involved, And obvious separate entirely murder, circumstance said punishing offense, nor due process 11 proceeds basis excessive, greater lesser ought conscience regard fairness, exceed another jurisdiction does anything Constitution, fix particular penalty 'proportionate' sentences independent crimes. Therefore punishments constitutional right. Nor, offenses merit collateral what 'the crime' 'merged' least 12 treated claims, find deprivation rights, law. 13 Affirmed. 14 DOUGLAS, tried twice guarantee against jeopardy, dissents. Okl.Stat.1951. 707, provides, pertinent part: 'Every person suffer hard labor penitentiary life, jury, (but) (punishment).' 745, part, who, without lawful authority, forcibly seizes confines another, inveigles kidnaps purpose extorting money, property thing value advantage seized *, manner threatens (the seized) felony, conviction penitentiary, less ten years.' answers follows: 'The Court: (T)he advised assistant your counsel, you wish withdraw heretofore wherein kidnapping, enter charge— 'Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Is correct? Now, understand nature charge, do you? That's You understand, punishable extreme imprisonment, electric chair? knowledge understanding, entering freely part? Has representation anyone else, expect case? I told maximum. Of charge? sir.' recited Attorney, FBI disclosed commission five consisting grand theft 1944, age 14, resulting release juvenile bureau; Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. 10, 2311—2313, 1945, three-year federal correctional institution Inglewood, Colorado; escape Inglewood Act 1947, months; 1949, Indiana Penitentiary. questions Wednesday, sequence events surrounding Do regard? No, Those true? admit acts set forth correct, it? (addressing petitioner): All behalf defendant? '(Counsel Petitioner): Nothing further.' provide: 'After summarily specified notice adverse direct.' 974. presented testimony examined 975. 'No affidavit testimony, kind, verbal written, can offered received member thereof except provided sections.' 701 provides: 'Homicide cases. '1. When perpetrated authority law, premeditated design effect killed, othr human being. '2. act imminently dangerous others evincing depraved mind, regardless although individual. '3. engaged felony.' Collins 70 340, 106 273; Mowels 52 193, 205; Ex parte Zeligson, 47 45, 287 P. 731; Fines 32 304, 240 1079; White 23 198, 214 202.

Category: 0