Court Opinion

ID: 9571106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:05.79999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:11.465504
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant asserts that this court has erroneously construed or misapplied the principles of proportional analysis found in Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277 (103 SC 3001, 77 LE2d 637). Appellant in essence asserts that the injuries to the victim were so slight that “any victim to a kidnapping would have received no less of a trauma.” We disagree. Moreover, pretermitting any question of the authority of this court to determine the constitutionality of a sentence is the express authority of this court to take those measures necessary and appropriate to protect our judgment (Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV, Ga. Const, of 1983). In doing so we are constrained to observe that the circumstances attendant upon this particular offense clearly justify the punishment imposed. Specifically, we note inter alia the following opera*898tive facts: the age of the victim, the nature and purpose of the attack, the use of a weapon in the perpetration of the crime, the actual stabbing — albeit slightly — of the young victim, the repeated and obvious serious threats to kill her if she failed to submit to appellant’s nefarious criminal designs, and the state of fear instilled in the youthful female victim.
Decided November 20, 1989
Rehearing denied December 14, 1989
Don E. Snow, for appellant.
W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, Anne Cobb, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.