DOCSLIB.ORG

Berger V. Horne

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berger V. Horne No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MORTON R. BERGER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JONATHAN M. GORDON ERWIN CHEMERINSKY KIMBERLY K. CHEMERINSKY Counsel of Record ALSTON & BIRD LLP UNIVERSITY OF 333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Los Angeles, California 90035 SCHOOL OF LAW (213) 576-1000 401 East Peltason Drive [email protected] Irvine, California 92697 [email protected] (949) 824-7722 [email protected] HERB ELY 3200 North Central Avenue DAYMON ELY Phoenix, Arizona 85012 1228 Central Avenue, SW (602) 230-2144 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87012 (505) 248-0370 Attorneys for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), this Court held that a sentence of life in prison, with no possibil- ity of parole, for passing a bad check worth approxi- mately $100 was grossly disproportionate and thus cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), this Court distinguished Solem v. Helm and found that two sentences of 25 years to life, to run consecutively, for stealing $153 worth of vide- otapes were not “contrary to” clearly established law because there was the possibility of parole, albeit in 50 years. Morton Berger was convicted of possessing 20 photographs of child pornography and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison for each, to run consecutively, with no possibility of parole. His sentence is thus 200 years in prison with no possibility of parole. This case thus poses the following issues: 1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in ruling, contrary to other state and federal courts, that the cumulative sentence is not to be considered in determining whether his sentence is cruel and unu- sual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amend- ment. 2. Whether in light of this Court’s consistent holdings that grossly disproportionate punishments violate the Eighth Amendment, the Arizona Supreme ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED – Continued Court’s decision upholding a 200-year mandatory sentence, with no possibility of parole, for the posses- sion of 20 images of child pornography is “contrary to” or an “unreasonable” application of clearly estab- lished federal law. iii LIST OF PARTIES The name of the Petitioner is: Morton R. Berger The names of the Respondents are: Tom Horne, Attorney General of the State of Arizona Charles Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i LIST OF PARTIES ............................................... iii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 7 I. This Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Conflict Among the Lower Courts, and An Issue Of National Im- portance, As To Whether the Aggregate Sentence For Multiple Convictions Is To Be Considered In Deciding Whether the Punishment Is Grossly Disproportionate and Thus Cruel and Unusual Punish- ment ........................................................... 7 A. Grossly Disproportionate Sentences Violate the Cruel and Unusual Pun- ishments Clause Of the Eighth Amendment ......................................... 8 B. This Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Split Among the Lower Courts and An Issue Of National Im- portance As To Whether Gross Dis- proportionality Is To Be Determined Based On the Aggregate Sentence Imposed ............................................... 9 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page II. The Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Conflict Between the Arizona Supreme Court Decision and the Rulings Of This Court As To Whether a Sentence Of 200 Years In Prison, With No Possibil- ity Of Parole, For Possessing 20 Pictures Of Child Pornography Is Cruel and Unu- sual Punishment In Violation Of the Eighth Amendment ................................... 13 A. Berger’s 200-Year Sentence Leads To An Inference Of Gross Disproportion- ality ...................................................... 14 B. Berger’s Sentence For This Crime Is By Far the Longest That Could Be Imposed In the Nation ........................ 18 C. Arizona’s Sentence For This Crime Is More Severe Than Sentences Imposed In Arizona For Arguably More Seri- ous and Violent Crimes. ...................... 23 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page FEDERAL CASES Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) ....................... 8 Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ............................... 24 Berger v. Arizona, 549 U.S. 1252 (2007) ...................... 6 Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 (1932) ............. 15 Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) ............... 9, 15 Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) ............ 8, 16 Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) ....................................................... 9, 14, 15, 18 Hawkins v. Hargett, 200 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 10 Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) ..................... 14 Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) ........ 11 Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) ..................... 16 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) ....... 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 United States v. Aiello, 864 F.2d 257 (2d Cir. 1988) ....... 10 United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 22, 23 United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 11 United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 16 United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 11 Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) .............. 8 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page STATE CASES McGervey v. State, 114 Nev. 460, 958 P.2d 1203 (1998) ....................................................................... 21 Miles v. State, 51 So.2d 214 (Miss. 1951) ................... 21 State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1999) ............ 11 State v. Berger, 209 Ariz. 386, 103 P.3d 298 (Ct. App. 2004) .................................................. 2, 4, 5, 20 State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473, 134 P.3d 378 (2006) .............................................................. passim State v. Buchhold, 727 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 2007) ........ 11 State v. Christensen, 663 N.W.2d 691 (S.D. 2003) ...... 20 State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377, 79 P.3d 64 (2003) .......... 4 State v. DiPiano, 187 Ariz. 41, 926 P.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1995) ................................................................. 4 State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St. 3d 176, 846 N.E.2d 824 (2006) ................................................................ 11 FEDERAL STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 2252 ......................................................... 21 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ........................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ........................................................... 6 STATE STATUTES Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-604.01 ............... passim Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-705 .............................. 2 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-710 ............................ 23 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1406 .......................... 23 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3553 .................. passim California Penal Code § 311.11(a) .............................. 21 New Mexico Statutes § 30-6A-3(A) ............................ 21 New Mexico Statutes § 31-18-15(A)(9) ...................... 21 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. VIII ..................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES Charles Patrick Ewing, Justice Perverted: Sex Offender Law, Psychology, & Public Policy (2011) ....................................................................... 22 Colin Moynihan, Judge Defies Prosecutors on Pornography Sentence, New York Times, May 21, 2010 ................................................................... 16 Jesse P. Basbaum, Note, Inequitable Sentenc- ing for Possession of Child Pornography: A Failure To Distinguish Voyeurs from Peder- asts, 61 Hastings L.J. 1281, 1298 (2010) ......... 17, 18 Melissa Hamilton, The Efficacy of Severe Child Pornography Sentencing: Empirical Validity or Political Rhetoric?, 22 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 545, 571, 584 (2011) ........................................ 17 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, at Table 27 (2010) ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Constitutional Law Steps out of the Shadows: Transcript of Selected Symposium Panel Discussions*
    KANSAS LAW REVIEW 2010 SYMPOSIUM TRANSCRIPT FINAL 5/14/2011 1:07:31 PM State Constitutional Law Steps Out of the Shadows: Transcript of Selected Symposium Panel Discussions* I. SCHOOL FINANCE AND EDUCATION RIGHTS PANEL DISCUSSION Stephen Mazza, Interim Dean, University of Kansas School of Law: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Kansas Law Review Annual Symposium. I am Steve Mazza, the Interim Dean at the KU Law School. We are honored to have with us today distinguished members of the judiciary of the legal academy and of the practicing bar. The topic of today’s symposium, State Constitutional Laws Steps Out of the Shadows, was suggested by our own Professor Stephen McAllister who is widely known for his work as the Kansas Solicitor General and his involvement in several important state constitutional cases. Steve, working with the Law Review Symposium Editor, Joseph Hinckley, the Law Review Editor in Chief, Melissa Plunkett, and the Managing Editor, Daniel Buller, and the entire Law Review staff, has put together an outstanding program and what I think you will find to be an interesting approach to today’s event. Instead of following the typical model of having a single presenter followed by a question and answer session, the program organizers opted to employ discussion panels, each having a convener and a group of panelists. As a result, I expect we are going to get a much livelier discussion of the issues this morning. So without further ado, I want to thank all the panel participants and I will turn the program over to the Symposium Editor of the Kansas Law Review, Joseph Hinckley, who will introduce the panels.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Multiple Crimes
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 27 2017, NEWGEN Sentencing Multiple Crimes Keijser170317ATUS_MSC_Book.indb 1 8/10/2017 10:07:37 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 27 2017, NEWGEN Recent Titles in Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy R.A. Duff, Michael Tonry, General Editors Popular Punishment On the Normative Significance of Public Opinion Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts Just Sentencing Principles and Procedures for a Workable System Richard S. Frase Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury Albert W. Dzur Retributivism Has a Past Has It a Future? Edited by Michael Tonry Taming the Presumption of Innocence Richard Lippke Sentencing Multiple Crimes Edited by Jesper Ryberg, Julian V. Roberts and Jan W. de Keijser Keijser170317ATUS_MSC_Book.indb 2 8/10/2017 10:07:37 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 27 2017, NEWGEN Sentencing Multiple Crimes EDITED BY JESPER RYBERG JULIAN V. ROBERTS JAN W. DE KEIJSER 1 Keijser170317ATUS_MSC_Book.indb 3 8/10/2017 10:07:37 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Thu Jul 27 2017, NEWGEN 1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Role of State Courts in The
    BERCH FINAL 5/14/2011 12:45:38 PM Reflections on the Role of State Courts in the Vindication of State Constitutional Rights: A Plea for State Appellate Courts to Consider Unraised Issues of State Constitutional Law in Criminal Cases Michael A. Berch∗ This Essay examines the persistent failures of counsel in criminal cases to raise state constitutional claims1 and the reluctance of state judges to excuse waivers of state constitutional rights.2 The Essay sets ∗ Michael A. Berch, Alan Matheson Distinguished Professor of Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. Let me express my appreciation to Professor Stephen McAllister and the members of the Kansas Law Review for inviting me and my wife, Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch of the Arizona Supreme Court, to participate at the Kansas Law Review Symposium, State Constitutional Law Steps Out of the Shadows. This Essay grew out of that presentation. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Elizabeth DiFelice, Assistant Director of the Ross Blakley library of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. I also extend appreciation to the editors and staff of the Kansas Law Review for their dedication to the Symposium and to this Essay. As always, I am grateful to my wife, Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch of the Arizona Supreme Court, for her comments and suggestions regarding this manuscript. None of the views expressed in the piece should be attributed to her or to any other member of the court. 1. As Robert Williams stated, “Despite the development of the New Judicial Federalism nearly two generations ago, lawyers still fail to properly argue the state constitutional grounds where available.” Robert F.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Disparities Between Male and Female Teacher Sexual Offenders
    Sentencing Disparities Between Male and Female Teacher Sexual Offenders: Do Male Offenders Receive Harsher Penalties in Arizona? by Christopher Simmon A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Approved November 2012 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Kristy Holtfreter, Chair Kevin Wright Cassia Spohn ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2012 ABSTRACT The purpose of this preliminary study is to determine if sentencing disparities exist between male and female teachers who have been convicted of sexual misconduct with a student in Maricopa County, Arizona over a ten-year period. The hypothesis is that male teachers convicted of sexual misconduct with a student will receive harsher punishment than their female counterparts. In addition, this research will analyze the sentencing decisions of Arizona judges and prosecutors through plea-bargaining when compared with the presumptive sentence set by the Arizona Legislature. Issues that will be addressed include: a brief review of gender disparities in sentencing, sex offender sentencing, Arizona's rules of criminal procedure, and a review of the Arizona Revised Statutes pertaining to sexual crimes as well as the Arizona Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. The data set consists of fifteen different Maricopa County teachers who committed a sexual offense against a student and were convicted of that offense from February 2000 through September 2009. According to the results of this study, male teachers do receive harsher penalties than their female counterparts within Maricopa County. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My special thanks are extended to my family Paul, Virginia, Jennifer, Rob, Robert and Jack as well as Lisa and her family for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Is That a Sexual Predator Hiding Behind That Badge? Steve A
    Is that a Sexual Predator hiding behind that badge? Steve A. Mizera, R.S.O Is that a sexual predator hiding behind that badge? Steve A. Mizera Stopping Sexual Predators before they strike, regardless of who they are, should be the primary focus in the effort to combat child molestation. It is not. Society has determined to waste its resources dealing with predators after they cause the damage to children. Although society is certainly justified in using precious resources to PUNISH predators after due process, it should consider educating parents and registering adults who work with and are responsible for children instead of using the millions of dollars it spends registering and monitoring former predators whose recidivism rate is extremely low. Current Sex Offender registration causes unwarranted harm to families of former offenders. The focus of this book is to arm parents and those responsible for children by providing answers to the questions: Who is molesting kids and why? When and where are children molested? How does molestation take place? And most important, what should be done to prevent this moral epidemic? Written and Compiled by Steve A. Mizera Research by WhoWroteWhat.net Anticipated date of publication: July 16, 2013 Copyright 2 Is that a sexual predator hiding behind that badge? Steve A. Mizera Fair Use Statement / Disclaimer: This book may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, medical/scientific, economic, and social justice issues, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 1988 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1988 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics n General in Appeals in Arguments in Attorneys in Briefs iv Certiorari iv Costs iv Judgments and Opinions v Miscellaneous v Original Cases v Records vi Rehearings vi Rules vi Stays vii Conclusion vn (i) II STATISTICS AS OF JULY 3, 1989 In Forma Paid Original Pauperis Cases Total Cases 14 2,587 3,056 5,657 Cases disposed of 2 2,203 2,625 4.830 Remaining on docket 12 384 431 827 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases 2,141 In forma pauperis cases 2,632 Original cases 2 Total 4,775 Cases remaining from last term 882 Total cases on docket 5,657 Cases disposed of 4,830 Number of remaining on docket 827 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases 106 In in forma pauperis cases 16 Appeals granted: In paid cases 23 In in fonna pauperis cases 2 Total cases granted plenary review 147 Cases argued during term 170 Number disposed of by full opinions 156 Number disposed of by per curiam opinions 12 Number set for reargument next term 2 Cases available for argument at beginning of term 105 Disposed of summarily after review was granted 4 Original cases set for argument 0 Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument 108 Total cases available for argument at start of next term 81 Number of written opinions of the Court 133 12 Opinions per curiam in argued cases , Number of lawyers admitted to practice as of October 1, 1989: On written motion 3,502 On oral motion 981 Total 4,483 Ill GENERAL: Page 1987 Term closed and 1988 Term convened October 3, 1988; adjourned October 2, 1989 1 Bryson, William C, named Acting Solicitor General, Jan- uary 21, 1989; remarks by the Chief Justice 692 Dowling, Shelley L., appointed Librarian to succeed Ste- phen G.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    NO._________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MORTON BERGER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. _____________________________________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT _____________________________________________ Laurie A. Herman * 4295 North 75th Street Scottsdale Arizona 85251 480.990.1440 * Counsel of Record Natalee Segal Ballecer & Segal 1095 East Indian School Road Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 602.277.0044 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Morton Berger is serving a 200-year prison sentence for possessing twenty images of child pornography, each image charged in a separate count. Arizona law mandates a prison sentence of 10 to 24 years for each image of child pornography possessed, and requires each sentence to run consecutively to every other sentence, with no possible probation, early release, or parole. The trial court did not conduct a proportionality inquiry to determine if this sentence was grossly disproportionate for a 52- year-old professional with no criminal history. A majority of the Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider the whole of Petitioner’s 200-year sentence under Arizona’s mandatory flat, consecutive sentencing scheme, as a factor in whether Petitioner’s punishment violates the Eighth Amendment. I. Whether the Eighth Amendment forbids courts from considering the fact of a mandatory flat, consecutive sentencing scheme for multiple counts, rather than merely focusing on the sentence for a single count, when determining whether an entire sentence constitutes an excessive or cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ....................................................... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2009 Issue 11
    Fall 2009 Issue 11 In This Issue: 2 Nashville Expo Partners 4 Updates from the Battle Against Child Exploitation 5-8 Dr. Frank Kardasz sends a powerful call Dr. Frank Kardasz, a law enforcement officer and member of the National Law Center’s to judges. Law Enforcement Advisory committee, sent an open letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This letter was in response to media reports on Child Pornography sentencing concerns. This commentary presents the perspective from a law enforcement professional 9 Calendar of Upcoming who works in this area on a daily basis and we think needs to be heard. We are pleased to Training Events present this letter in its entirety and thank Dr. Kardasz for his permission to publish this important commentary. - The Editors I solemnly read a news report that began with the following troubling headline: Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say (1). The story described a recent meeting of the U.S. Sentencing Commission where judges advocated softening sentences for possessors of child pornography. Not in attendance, and sadly unrepresented at the commission meeting, were thousands of anonymous victims of child sexual abuse whose tortured images and videos are being traded as you read this, by pedophiles, sex offenders, and the criminally sexually curious. As a law enforcement officer, having supervised thousands of investigations into unlawful images over the past ten years, it is disheartening to see some in the judiciary attempting to unravel years of pro- gressive legislation against this disturbing form of child abuse. Normally I am reticent to contradict judges because I am only a humble policeman, dutifully aware that judge-liness is next to godliness in the justice system but I must herein rebut some of the misin- formation from the report for the purpose of informing those in the judiciary who do not deal with this subject on a regular basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Disparities Between Male and Female Teacher Sexual Offenders
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ASU Digital Repository Sentencing Disparities Between Male and Female Teacher Sexual Offenders: Do Male Offenders Receive Harsher Penalties in Arizona? by Christopher Simmon A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Approved November 2012 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Kristy Holtfreter, Chair Kevin Wright Cassia Spohn ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2012 ABSTRACT The purpose of this preliminary study is to determine if sentencing disparities exist between male and female teachers who have been convicted of sexual misconduct with a student in Maricopa County, Arizona over a ten-year period. The hypothesis is that male teachers convicted of sexual misconduct with a student will receive harsher punishment than their female counterparts. In addition, this research will analyze the sentencing decisions of Arizona judges and prosecutors through plea-bargaining when compared with the presumptive sentence set by the Arizona Legislature. Issues that will be addressed include: a brief review of gender disparities in sentencing, sex offender sentencing, Arizona's rules of criminal procedure, and a review of the Arizona Revised Statutes pertaining to sexual crimes as well as the Arizona Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. The data set consists of fifteen different Maricopa County teachers who committed a sexual offense against a student and were convicted of that offense from February 2000 through September 2009. According to the results of this study, male teachers do receive harsher penalties than their female counterparts within Maricopa County. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My special thanks are extended to my family Paul, Virginia, Jennifer, Rob, Robert and Jack as well as Lisa and her family for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques.
    [Show full text]