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.
United States v. Whidbee
Citation: 307 F. App'x 537Docket: No. 08-1612-cr
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 20, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Defendant Maurice Whidbee appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, resulting in a 182-month sentence. He contends that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment due to his diminished mental capacity. The Eighth Amendment prohibits only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. The court references previous rulings indicating that mandatory minimum sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) are not grossly disproportionate, even in cases involving defendants with prior felony convictions. Whidbee draws on the case of Atkins v. Virginia to argue that a generally proportionate sentence can be grossly disproportionate when applied to someone with mental deficiencies. However, the court clarifies that Atkins pertains specifically to capital sentences, which are treated differently under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling in Harmelin v. Michigan reinforces that non-capital sentences do not afford the same considerations as death penalties. Whidbee's conviction involved the possession of a high-powered rifle in public, coupled with a history of violent felonies and firearm-related offenses. Given the seriousness of his crime and his history as a repeat offender, the court finds no basis for asserting that his sentence is grossly disproportionate. Consequently, the district court's judgment is affirmed.