This is a case about a 28-year old defendant who was sentenced to 63 years in prison for a string of robberies. Defendant argues this is a "functional life sentence" and unconstitutional in light of his mental disabilities, asserting that he has the functioning intellect of a 10-year old. The Court of Appeal disagrees.
It's a bad case for the arguments defendant makes. He was personally armed. There were a plethora of robberies. He had a prior criminal record. You're going to be hard pressed to persuade someone that, at this point, taking a 28-year old off the street until he's 60 or so (assuming time off for good behavior) is unconstitutionally excessive.
On an only tangentially related note, I had to reflect on my own mental competence when I stumbled over a portion of Justice Murray's opinion. On page four, the opinion reads:
"On November 24 at approximately 6:15 p.m., J.K., the store manager at the ampm on Marconi Avenue, saw two men enter the store."
When I read this, I asked myself: "Wait. What's an ampm? Is that a typo? An abbreviation for amphitheater? What?!"
It took me a couple of seconds before I finally figured out what an ampm was.
POSTSCRIPT - An informer reader reminds me that as a "striker" the defendant here actually has to serve a minimum 80 percent of his sentence, rather than half, so the earliest he can get out is age 78, rather than in his 60s). I doubt that fact would sway most readers to a different conclusion, but agree that 78 is super old -- as well as likely exceeds the probable (but by no means certain) life expectancy for a male who's spending 50 years in prison.
