Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
William Neal Moore v. Charles Balkcom, Warden, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General
Citations: 722 F.2d 629; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14560Docket: 81-7418
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; December 13, 1983; Federal Appellate Court
William Neal Moore, the respondent and cross-petitioner, filed a petition for rehearing and suggested rehearing en banc concerning his sentencing for a crime in Georgia. Moore argued that the sentencing judge improperly focused only on his cooperation with law enforcement and truthful statements, neglecting other mitigating factors. He contended that the judge perceived the death sentence as mandatory and believed he lacked discretion to impose a life sentence. Upon review, the court affirmed that Judge McMillan had appropriately considered all mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase. The judge actively engaged with witnesses and acknowledged their testimonies, including statements from Moore's relatives about his character and Moore's own account of the crime, which he attributed to fear and intoxication. The court confirmed that Judge McMillan recognized his discretion in sentencing, as per Georgia law established in Coley v. State, and was satisfied that all mitigating circumstances had been duly considered. Consequently, the court denied both Moore's petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc, with no request for polling on the latter. Additionally, U.S. Circuit Judge Reynaldo G. Garza sat by designation for this case.