Court Opinion

ID: 9750546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:06:26.436045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:12.388747
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice, MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge, ZEL M. FISCHER, Judge,
concurring jointly.
We concur in the principal opinion except as to the proportionality analysis. We agree that Dorsey’s capital sentences are proportional to his crimes. However, we disagree that “similar” cases for proportionality review analysis requires consideration of cases that resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment without the *660possibility of probation or parole. We have concurred in this analysis in State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010); State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2010); and State v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. banc 2010) (Fischer, J., concurring), and have agreed with the longstanding precedent of proportionality review holding that consideration of “similar” cases requires consideration of only those cases resulting in a death sentence.
The mandates have been issued in Deck and in Anderson. Davis is now a final judgment. Although we have disagreed with the majorities’ proportionality analy-ses in those opinions, we must follow the decisions of this Court, even if we disagree, or even the decisions appear to be in error. See State v. Buchanan, 115 S.W.3d 841, 842 (Mo. banc 2003) (Benton, Price, & Limbaugh, JJ., jointly concurring); U.S. Const. art. VI; Mo. Const, art. V, sec. 2. Although we will continue to disagree with the majority’s proportionality analysis, we will not object in all opinions hereafter.