Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jesse Lee Wood v. State of South Carolina

Jesse Lee Wood v. State of S.C., 483 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-07-13
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • refusing to apply Hart to a five-year sentence for an obscene telephone call; defendant had prior convictions for larceny and auto theft

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jesse Lee Wood v. State of South Carolina. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
WOOD v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,483 F.2d 149(4th Cir. 1973)
JESSE LEE WOOD, APPELLANT v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 72-1336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 2, 1973.
Decided July 13, 1973.
Page 150
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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).

[2] 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.

[3] 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);1State 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

[4] Whatever may be our subjective view of the matter, we fail to discern here objective factors establishing disproportionality in violation of the eighth amendment.SeeHart v. Coiner,483 F.2d 136(4th Cir. 1973), decided today.

[5] The decision of the district court will therefore be

[6] Affirmed.Page 191
  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. ↩