Court Opinion

ID: 9561348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:08:03.95179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:44.819851
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
It is clear that a sentence of life without parole is an alternative to a sentence of death, since OCGA § 17-10-16 (a) unambiguously provides that one who is convicted of an offense for which “the death penalty may be imposed under the laws of this state may be sentenced to death, imprisonment for life without parole, or life imprisonment as provided in Article 2 of this chapter.” (Emphasis supplied.) However, the issue presented for resolution in this case is whether an effort by the State to obtain the death penalty is a prerequisite to its effort to obtain the alternative sentence of life without parole. The trial court held that the State cannot seek a sentence of life without parole independently of the death penalty. The majority affirms that holding, concluding that a sentence of life without parole is “dependent upon the State also seeking the death penalty.” In my opinion, the State is authorized to seek a sentence of life without parole independently of the death penalty and thát sentence is not, therefore, dependent upon the State also seeking the death penalty. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s affirmance of what I perceive to be an erroneous judgment of the trial court.
Ga. L. 1993, p. 1654 et seq. is the controlling statutory provision regarding a sentence of life without parole. In authorizing the imposition of such a sentence in this state, the 1993 enactment made several amendments to Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the Code. As the majority correctly notes, the existing general sentencing provisions of OCGA §§ 17-10-1 and 17-10-2 were amended “by inserting ‘life without parole’ as a third sentencing option. . . .” However, these amendments to OCGA §§ 17-10-1 and 17-10-2 are consistent with “life without parole” being an independent alternative third sentencing option. The majority cites nothing in those amendments which purports to establish that the State’s effort to obtain the death penalty is a prerequisite to the imposition of a sentence of life without parole.
The majority likewise correctly notes that the 1993 enactment also “created four new Code sections within Chapter 10 of Title 17.” *328Those four new Code sections are OCGA §§ 17-10-16; 17-10-30.1; 17-10-31.1 and 17-10-32.1 According to the majority at 325,
[i]t is apparent from a review of these statutes that they represent a coherent statutory plan whereby death penalty provisions are and must be utilized in order to implement the life without parole sentencing option.
Contrary to the majority, it . is apparent from my review of these statutes that they do not represent such a statutory plan.
As previously noted, OCGA § 17-10-16 (a) provides that one who is convicted of an offense for which “the death penalty may be imposed under the laws of this state may be sentenced to death, imprisonment for life without parole, or life imprisonment as provided in Article 2 of this chapter.” (Emphasis supplied.) Since Article 2 relates to the “Death Penalty Generally,” the majority apparently construes OCGA § 17-10-16 (a) as an expression of the legislative intent that a sentence of life without parole can be considered and imposed only when the State is seeking the death penalty. However, OCGA §§ 17-10-30.1; 17-10-31.1 and 17-10-32.1 also appear in Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 17. While OCGA §§ 17-10-30; 17-10-31 and 17-10-32 relate exclusively to the imposition of the death penalty, OCGA §§ 17-10-30.1; 17-10-31.1 and 17-10-32.1 relate exclusively to the imposition of the sentence of life without parole. The mere fact that the General Assembly codified the statutory provisions regarding the sentence of life without parole in the same article as those regarding the death penalty does not indicate a legislative intent that the State’s effort to obtain the latter is a prerequisite to the imposition of the former. If that had been the legislative intent, the General Assembly presumably would not have enacted entirely new statutory provisions which relate exclusively to the imposition of the sentence of life without parole, but merely would have amended the existing statutory provisions relating to the death penalty so as to specify that the State’s effort to obtain that sentence was a prerequisite to its effort to obtain the sentence of life without parole. I believe that, by enacting entirely new statutory provisions which relate exclusively to the imposition of the sentence of life without parole and by codifying those statutory provisions in the same article as that which contains the statutory provisions relating to the death penalty, the General Assembly intended no more than that the sentence of life without parole be considered as an independent alternative sentence to the death penalty. Thus, insofar as OCGA § 17-10-16 (a) authorizes the sentences of death, life without parole, or life “as provided in Article 2 of this chapter,” it is the provisions of OCGA §§ 17-10-30; 17-10-31 and 17-10-32 which relate to the sentence of death and the independent pro*329visions of OCGA §§ 17-10-30.1; 17-10-31.1 and 17-10-32.1 which relate to the sentence of life without parole.
The death penalty “may be imposed under the laws of this state” for the offense of murder and, “as provided in Article 2” of Chapter 10 of Title 17, the sentence of life without parole may be imposed “in any murder case in which there is found by the court or jury one or more statutory aggravating circumstances as defined by Code Section 17-10-30.” OCGA § 17-10-30.1 (a). The majority states in fn. 6 that “[i]t is only in cases where the State seeks the death penalty that juries are required to find the statutory aggravating circumstances pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-30 (b).” However, the majority cites no authority to support its conclusion that the issue of the existence of the statutory aggravating circumstances enumerated in OCGA § 17-10-30 is limited to a case wherein the death penalty is being sought. OCGA § 17-10-30.1 itself certainly does not support that conclusion. By its terms, OCGA § 17-10-30.1 (a) requires only a finding of one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances “as defined by Code Section 17-10-30.” OCGA § 17-10-30.1 does not require that that finding be made in the context of a case wherein the death penalty is being sought. Obviously, a statutory aggravating circumstance “as defined by Code Section 17-10-30” may be found in a case in which the State is not seeking the death penalty. All that is required is that the issue of the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance “as defined by Code Section 17-10-30” be submitted to the factfinder. By construing OCGA § 17-10-30.1 as limiting the State’s effort to obtain a sentence of life without parole to a case wherein the State also seeks to obtain the death penalty, the majority erroneously ignores the actual wording of that enactment.
The majority at 326 does correctly note that OCGA § 17-10-31.1 (a) “creates three threshold requirements for imposition of a sentence of life without parole by a jury. . . .” However, one of those three requirements is not that the State also be seeking the imposition of the death penalty. OCGA § 17-10-32.1, on the other hand, does specifically mandate that, when the sentence is to be imposed by the trial court pursuant to a guilty plea rather than determined by the jury after a trial, a sentence of life without parole cannot be pronounced unless the State has given notice of its intent “to seek the death penalty pursuant to the Uniform Rules of the Superior Courts. . . .” Thus, in this limited situation, the State’s effort to obtain the death penalty is a prerequisite to its effort to obtain the sentence of life without parole. If the General Assembly had intended that the State’s effort to obtain the death penalty be a prerequisite to its effort to obtain the sentence of life without parole in all circumstances, it presumably would not have limited that requirement to cases involving guilty pleas. The absence of a comparable limitation in either OCGA *330§§ 17-10-30.1 or 17-10-31.1 evidences the legislative intent that such a requirement is not applicable in cases which are to be tried before a jury or before the court.
As the majority further notes, the uncodified Section 9 of the 1993 enactment provides that “[n]o person shall be sentenced to life without parole unless such person could have received the death penalty under the laws of this state. . . .” Under the laws of this state, however, a person who is convicted of murder can receive the death penalty. The requirement that the State give notice of its intent to seek the death penalty is not a requirement of the laws of this state, but of the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court. The only law of this state which mandates the giving of notice of the State’s intent to seek the death penalty in connection with the imposition of the sentence of life without parole is OCGA § 17-10-32.1. That statute is inapplicable here, because appellees have not entered pleas of guilty to the murders they are charged with committing.
Life without parole represents a viable independent sentencing alternative in a murder case wherein the State determines that, although aggravating circumstances exist, the death penalty may not otherwise be authorized. Moreover, if the sentence of life without parole can be sought in a non-death penalty murder case, the State can avoid the delay, complexity and expense of complying with requirements applicable only to death-penalty cases, such as the Unified Appeal Procedure and the empaneling of a death-qualified jury. See Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (88 SC 1770, 20 LE2d 776) (1968); Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (105 SC 844, 83 LE2d 841) (1985). Indeed, the majority at pp. 326-327 concedes that permitting the State to seek a sentence of life without parole in the context of a non-death penalty case “may allow ... for a logical alternative in aggravated murder cases,” but nevertheless concludes that “that matter is best raised before the Legislature.” I respectfully submit that the “matter” already has been raised and resolved by the General Assembly and that the majority opinion frustrates the existing legislative intent in that regard. Under the majority opinion, life without parole is not an independent alternative sentencing option in a murder case with aggravating circumstances and the time consuming and expensive compliance with death-penalty procedures cannot be avoided even though the State determines that the death penalty is not authorized in that particular case. It is my belief, however, that under, the existing statutory provisions, the sentences of death and life without parole are alternative, and that seeking the former is not a prerequisite to the imposition of the latter where, as here, no guilty pleas have been entered to the murder charges. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
*331Decided March 4, 1996.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carl P. Greenberg, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
Drew Findling, Anna Blitz, R. David Botts, John L. Hulsey, Jr., Elizabeth Rankin, for appellees.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Davis, Zipperman, Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Nicholas A. Lotito, Jackson & Schiavone, G. Terry Jackson, amici curiae.