Court Opinion

ID: 9539992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:06.75674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:30.968203
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Division 1 and in the affirmance of the judgment of conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In Division 2, however, the majority rejects the clearest and most objective evidence under our Eighth Amendment precedent, simplistically minimizes the gravity of Bradshaw’s crime by denominating it as a passive, nonviolent felony, erroneously maximizes the harshness of the penalty by treating his eligibility for parole as insignificant, and disregards the evolving consensus with respect to that crime both within and outside Georgia. Therefore, adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, the rules of statutory construction, and the principle of separation of powers compels me to dissent to today’s monumental abuse of this Court’s authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation.
1. Based upon precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court has repeatedly “[r]ecogniz[ed] that recent legisla*684tive enactments constitute the most objective evidence of a society’s evolving standards of decency and of how a society views a particular punishment. . . .” Humphrey v. Wilson, 282 Ga. 520, 527 (3) (c) (652 SE2d 501) (2007). See also Johnson v. State, 276 Ga. 57, 62 (5) (573 SE2d 362) (2002) (“the clearest and most objective evidence of how contemporary society views a particular punishment”); Fleming v. Zant, 259 Ga. 687, 689 (3) (386 SE2d 339) (1989). In Division 2 (a), however, the majority rejects the applicability of this principle because, “in the case at bar, it is the legislature’s most recent enactment that stands charged as imposing a sentence that is grossly disproportionate.” (Maj. op. p. 678.) In support of its analysis, the majority cites two cases, one of which is entirely inapplicable and the other of which actually contradicts the majority opinion. Terry v. Hamrick, 284 Ga. 24, 28 (3) (663 SE2d 256) (2008) did not involve a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. That case actually held that applying Humphrey in the different context of determining whether banishment was constitutionally unreasonable would lead to anomalous results. Dawson v. State, 274 Ga. 327, 330 (3) (554 SE2d 137) (2001) heavily relied on the most recent amendment to the statutory method of execution because it represented “ ‘the clearest and most objective evidence of how contemporary society views a particular punishment’ inasmuch as that significant change in the law ‘amount(s) to evidence of the shifting or evolution of the societal consensus.’ [Cit.]”
Under the majority’s erroneous and wholly unsupported analysis, a societal consensus as expressed in the most recent legislative amendment is apparently relevant only in invalidating a penalty and not in upholding it. To the contrary, even if a societal consensus opposes a particular sentence at some time, that “does not mean that such consensus may not [again] change thus altering what comes within the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment.” Fleming v. Zant, supra at 690 (3). Therefore, the most recent statutory sentencing provision constitutes the clearest and most objective evidence of how society views a punishment which was nonexistent or less severe in the past.
In this case, the 2006 amendment to OCGA § 42-1-12 (n), especially when considered in the context of its initial codification and the ensuing increases in the penalty for failure to register as a sex offender, which are set forth in footnote 5 of the majority opinion, is the clearest and most objective evidence that society’s view of that punishment has shifted, such that life imprisonment for a second conviction is now viewed as a necessary and appropriate punishment for failure to register as a sex offender.
2. In Division 2 (b), the majority, citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 292-293, 296 (103 SC 3001, 77 LE2d 637) (1983), discounts the *685felony of failure to register as a sex offender as being nonviolent and passive. However, the crime at issue in Solem was uttering a no account check, which “was ‘ “one of the most passive felonies a person could commit.” ’ [Cit.] It ‘involved neither violence nor threat of violence to any person,’ and was ‘viewed by society as among the less serious offenses.’ [Cit.]” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 1002 (II) (A) (111 SC 2680, 115 LE2d 836) (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The majority also selectively quotes from the General Assembly’s findings in 2006, omitting those findings which show that the suggestion that the felony here was merely “nonviolent and victimless... is false to the point of absurdity. To the contrary, [Bradshaw’s] crime threatened to cause grave harm to society.” Harmelin v. Michigan, supra. The legislative findings which are relevant to this case read as follows:
The General Assembly finds and declares that recidivist sexual offenders . . . and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Many sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses; and some sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. The General Assembly finds that this makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. The General Assembly further finds that the high level of threat that a sexual predator presents to the public safety, and the long-term effects suffered by victims of sex offenses, provide the state with sufficient justification to implement a strategy that includes: . . . [Requiring the registration of sexual offenders, with a requirement that complete and accurate information be maintained and accessible for use by law enforcement authorities, communities, and the public; [and] [providing for community and public notification concerning the presence of sexual offenders .... The General Assembly further finds that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public from sexual offenders and in protecting children from predatory sexual activity, and there is sufficient justification for requiring sexual offenders to register and for requiring community and public notification of the presence of sexual offenders. The General Assembly declares that in order to protect the public, it is necessary that the sexual offenders be registered and that members of the community and the public be notified of a sexual offender’s presence.
*686Ga. L. 2006, pp. 379, 381, § 1. This state
could conclude that a conviction for a sex offense provides evidence of substantial risk of recidivism. The legislature’s findings are consistent with grave concerns over the high rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class. The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high.” [Cits.]
Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 103 (II) (B) (123 SC 1140, 155 LE2d 164) (2003). Accordingly, the General Assembly clearly was authorized to conclude that a sexual offender’s failure to register is an extremely serious crime which thwarts its statutory strategy for protecting the public from the high risk of repeated sexual offenses. As even the majority acknowledges, substantive penological judgments are “ ‘properly within the province of legislatures, not courts[,]’ ” and a state legislature is entitled to accord great weight to the penological goal of deterrence and to utilize a theory of mandatory sentencing. Harmelin v. Michigan, supra at 998-999 (I) (B), 1006 (II) (B).
3. In Division 2 (c), the majority quotes Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263, 280 (II) (100 SC 1133, 63 LE2d 382) (1980) for the proposition that Bradshaw’s “ ‘inability to enforce any “right” to parole precludes us from treating his life sentence as if it were equivalent to a sentence of (seven) years.’ [Cit.]” (Maj. op. p. 680.) While that is true enough, immediately after this quoted language, the Supreme Court of the United States stated the following:
Nevertheless, because parole is “an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals,” [cit.], a proper assessment of [the] treatment of [the defendant] could hardly ignore the possibility that he will not actually be imprisoned for the rest of his life.
Rummel v. Estelle, supra at 280-281 (II). Although parole is a discretionary matter for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, “the General Assembly has required the Board to establish and use a parole guidelines system. [Cit.]” Daker v. Ray, 275 Ga. 205, 206 (2) (563 SE2d 429) (2002). “Thus it is possible to predict, at least to some extent, when parole might be granted.” Solem v. Helm, supra at 301 (IV) (B). Unlike pardon and commutation, which are given little weight in Solem, parole “is an important consideration in determining the actual prison time to be served under any sentence which is parole eligible.” State v. Griffin, 744 P2d 10, 12 (II) (Ariz. 1987) (In Banc). See also Williams v. State, 539 A2d 164, 172 (Del. 1988) . Bradshaw’s sentence must be regarded as far “less severe *687than the one invalidated in Solem, in which the petitioner had been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. [Cit.]” Taylor v. Lewis, 460 F3d 1093,1098 (II) (B) (1) (9th Cir. 2006) (where defendant was eligible for parole after 25 years). Because Bradshaw will be eligible for parole in only seven years under OCGA § 42-9-45 (b), his sentence is also considerably less severe than the sentence of life imprisonment upheld in Rummel v. Estelle, supra, where the petitioner was eligible for parole in 12 years. Compare Taylor v. Lewis, supra.
Accordingly, in light of the gravity of Bradshaw’s offense and his eligibility for parole in seven years, this surely is not “the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.” Harmelin v. Michigan, supra at 1005 (II) (A). Therefore, the intra-jurisdictional and inter-jurisdictional proportionality analyses set forth in the majority opinion are completely unnecessary. Harmelin v. Michigan, supra.
4. Even assuming that an inference of gross disproportionality has been raised, the majority’s comparison of Bradshaw’s sentence with those imposed for other crimes in Georgia and for the same crime outside the state do not in any way confirm that inference. In Division 3 of its opinion, the majority errs, in a manner similar to Division 2 (b), by assuming that violent criminals in Georgia are necessarily more culpable than sex offenders who fail to register. As discussed above, however, the legislature was authorized to conclude that such failure to register increases the extremely high and grave risk of repeated sexual offenses against members of the public, which commonly involve violence or the threat of violence.
Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has observed that “the presence or absence of violence does not always affect the strength of society’s interest in deterring a particular crime or in punishing a particular criminal.” Rummel v. Estelle, supra at 275 (II). Other crimes in this state, “of course, implicate other societal interests, making any such comparison inherently speculative.” Rummel v. Estelle, supra at 282 (II), fn. 27. Many offenses in Georgia can hardly be termed “violent,” “and yet each can be viewed as an assault on a unique set of societal values as defined by the political process.” Rummel v. Estelle, supra. Such offenses include, for example, a variety of crimes which relate to property or, similar to the crime here, impede the administration of justice in some way. Many of those nonviolent offenses have statutory punishments which are equal to or greater than some of the violent crimes listed by the majority. See OCGA §§ 16-8-12 (penalties for theft), 16-9-1 (b) (first degree forgery), 16-9-2 (b) (second degree forgery), 16-10-50 (b) (hindering apprehension or punishment of criminal), 16-10-52 (b) *688(escape), 16-10-53 (a) (aiding escape), 16-10-90 (b) (compounding a felony), 16-10-94 (c) (tampering with evidence of a felony), 42-1-15 (h) (2) (sex offender’s failure to comply with residence, employment, or loitering restrictions). The notions embodied in the majority opinion “that if the crime involved ‘violence,’ [cit.], a more severe penalty is warranted under objective standards simply will not wash, whether it be taken as a matter of morals, history, or law.” Rummel v. Estelle, supra.
Accordingly, the majority’s intra-jurisdictional proportionality review fails to confirm any inference of gross disproportionality.
5. In the inter-jurisdictional proportionality analysis in Division 4 of its opinion, the majority merely recites the penalties in other states without considering any of the recognized variables which complicate that analysis, including parole eligibility, as discussed above, and the role of prosecutorial discretion with respect to recidivist provisions. Rummel v. Estelle, supra at 280-281 (II).
Another factor undermining the majority’s analysis is the nationwide trend of increasing the penalties for failure to register as a sex offender. In 2006, Congress increased the federal punishment for failure to register as a sex offender to a single maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. 42 USC § 2250 (a); United States v. Gill, 520 FSupp.2d 1341, 1343 (D. Utah 2007). Congress also required states to establish a maximum term of imprisonment that is greater than one year for a sex offender’s failure to comply with registration requirements. 42 USC § 16913 (e); United States v. Senogles, 570 FSupp.2d 1134, 1149 (III) (A) (2) (D. Minn. 2008). Thus, all of those states cited by the majority with maximum penalties of one year or less will presumably amend their statutes to increase those penalties in conformity with federal law.
Furthermore, I have not located any instance of a decreased punishment, and many, if not most, states have at some point increased the sentences for failure to register as a sex offender. State v. Cook, 187 P3d 1283, 1286 (Kan. 2008); In re Derrick B., 139 P3d 485, 491 (II) (Cal. 2006); Peterson v. Shake, 120 SW3d 707, 708 (Ky. 2003); Gary L. Miller & Joel M. Schumm, Recent Developments in Indiana Criminal Law and Procedure, 30 Ind. L. Rev. 1005, 1008 (I) (D) (1997); Jessica R. Ball, Public Disclosure of “America’s Secret Shame:” Child Sex Offender Community Notification Law in Illinois, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 401, 425 (III) (A) (1996). Given the clear national trend,
[ejven were we to assume that the statute employed against [Bradshaw] was the most stringent found in the 50 States, that severity hardly would render [his] punishment “grossly disproportionate” to his offenses or to the punish*689ment he would have received in the other States. . .. Absent a constitutionally imposed uniformity inimical to traditional notions of federalism, some State will always bear the distinction of treating particular offenders more severely than any other State.
Decided November 25, 2008.
Robert L. Persse, for appellant.
Richard A. Mallard, District Attorney, W. Scott Brannen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Rummel v. Estelle, supra at 281-282 (II). Thus, the majority’s inference of gross disproportionality is not reinforced by its inter-jurisdictional proportionality review.
In just one year, the majority has departed from the analytical framework of Humphrey v. Wilson, including its emphasis on utilizing the clearest and most objective evidence of how society views a particular punishment. In Humphrey, supra at 532 (3) (g), this Court joined the Supreme Court of the United States in ‘‘emphasizing] that it is the ‘rare case()’ in which the threshold inference of gross disproportionality will be met and a rarer case still in which that threshold inference stands after further scrutiny. [Cit.]” Indeed, outside the context of capital punishment and extreme cases such as punishment of overtime parking by life imprisonment, successful challenges to the proportionality of legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment should be “exceedingly rare.” Ewing v. California, 538 U. S. 11, 21-22 (II) (A) (123 SC 1179, 155 LE2d 108) (2003). “[T]he issue of punishment is generally one for the legislative branch, and legislative discretion is deferred to unless the sentence imposed shocks the conscience. [Cit.]” Johnson v. State, supra. Because the case before us is not one of those exceedingly rare cases that shocks the conscience, I strongly dissent to that portion of the judgment which vacates the authorized sentence of Bradshaw and remands this case for re-sentencing.