Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jesse Lee Wood, Appellant, v. State of South Carolina et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 483 F.2d 149
Argued April 2, 1973.Decided July 13, 1973
Ann Beddingfield, Third Year Student (Barry Nakell, Chapel Hill, N. C., [Court-appointed counsel] on brief) for appellant.
Emmet H. Clair, Asst. Atty. Gen., of S. C. (Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. of S. C., and Robert M. Ariail, Asst. Atty. Gen., of S. C., on brief) for appellees.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Wood was sentenced by a South Carolina state court to concurrent terms of five years' imprisonment on his pleas of guilty to two counts of making obscene telephone calls in violation of S.C.Code Ann. Sec. 16-552.1 (Supp. 1971).
The only issue presented us on this appeal from the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is whether the sentences imposed upon Wood are so excessive and disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the eighth amendment.
The sentences given Wood were within the rather startling ten-year maximum allowed by South Carolina law. S.C.Code Ann. Sec. 17-552 (Supp. 1971);1 State v. Hill, 254 S.C. 321, 175 S.E.2d 227, 232 (1970). The sentencing judge was doubtless influenced, and properly so, by Wood's prior criminal record.2
Whatever may be our subjective view of the matter, we fail to discern here objective factors establishing disproportionality in violation of the eighth amendment. See Hart v. Coiner, 483 F. 2d 136 (4th Cir. 1973), decided today.
The decision of the district court will therefore be
Affirmed.