Legal Opinion · Dissent

Abell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 6, 1980No. 41894Published

1DissentDowd, Presiding Judge

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the majority has, in reasoning to its conclusion, subordinated the constitutional mandate against cruel and unusual punishment to the legislative power to establish the range of punishment for any given offense. I do not quarrel with the legislature’s authority to establish a statutory range of punishment but it is erroneous, in my opinion, to equate review of sentences with review of statutory ranges of punishment. Except in circumstances where the constitutionality of the statute prescribing the punishment range is challenged, judicial review of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Weems v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. Coker v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. State v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
  5. State v. KeebleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API