Jesse Lee Wood v. State of South Carolina
Jesse Lee WOOD, Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
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. § 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. § 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 dispropor-tionality 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.
1
. Until amended in 1967, maximum incarceration was six months. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-552.1 (1962).
2
. Wood was serving a sentence for burglary at the time he placed the calls. His prior record included convictions for larceny and automobile theft.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(refusing to apply Hart to a five-year sentence for an obscene telephone call; defendant had prior convictions for larceny and auto theft)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.