Thacker v. Garrison

445 F. Supp. 376, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19623
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 10, 1978
DocketC-C-76-266
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 445 F. Supp. 376 (Thacker v. Garrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thacker v. Garrison, 445 F. Supp. 376, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19623 (W.D.N.C. 1978).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

McMILLAN, District Judge.

Johnny Mack Thacker, petitioner, was tried in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Superior Court in February, 1969, on charges of safecracking, in violation of N.C. G.S. § 14-89.1. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced by the presiding judge, the late Judge B. T. Falls, to serve 48 to 50 years in the state prison.

*377 Thacker seeks relief via habeas corpus upon the grounds that his sentence of 48 to 50 years is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutionally excessive. He has exhausted state remedies.

The evidence presented at the trial tended to show that Thacker broke into the unoccupied office of a plant nursery on a Sunday morning while the nursery was closed. He entered by removing a window air conditioning unit and climbing in the window. Once inside he turned over the safe which was approximately six feet tall, used some nursery tools that were stored in the office, primarily an axe and a sledge hammer, to pry off the door to the safe, and stole the money (less than $10.00) which was in the safe. There was no evidence that Thacker was armed or had any burglar’s tools or explosives when he entered the building.

After the jury returned its verdict, the trial judge inquired about Thacker’s past criminal record and tried to get him to say who was with him at the time of the crime. Thacker continued to deny that he had committed the offense and refused to name his accomplice (if there was one). Thacker’s past record was reviewed; it shows convictions for breaking and entering and larceny, housebreaking and larceny, loafing and loitering, and armed robbery, and an escape while he was serving the armed robbery sentence.

After the brief exchange with Thacker, the judge sentenced him to forty-eight to fifty years in the state prison in Raleigh. (A transcript of the sentencing proceeding is attached as Appendix B.) He has served nine years of that sentence.

At the time Thacker was sentenced, N.C. G.S. § 14-89.1 provided a sentence of from ten years to life in the discretion of the trial judge for the “use of explosives, drills, or other tools [to] unlawfully force open or attempt to force open or ‘pick’ the combination of a safe or vault used for storing money or other valuables . . . .”

The sentence was within the statutory maximum. This, however, does not end the inquiry. The question is whether the sentence is so disproportionate to the seriousness of the underlying offense and so grossly excessive that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1973).

The factors to be considered in determining whether the sentence is excessive are the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the statutorily permissible punishment, the kind of punishment other jurisdictions impose for the same crime, and the comparative punishment in the same jurisdiction for other offenses. Hart v. Coiner, supra, at 140-142.

(a) The nature of the offense. — The respondents, in their “Answer to Petition and Motion to Dismiss,” justify the lengthy sentence because of the nature of the crime. They say, “It is one which requires expertise, and therefore is usually committed by professional criminals. It is, of course, always a crime of premeditation. Usually it is accompanied by a number of other crimes under state law such as possession of burglary tools, breaking and entering and larceny, or by such federal crimes as the illegal possession of explosives.” Id. at p. 3.

In examining the length of a sentence, it is not enough merely to look at how the crime is “usually committed” or to examine the elements of the crime. The facts and circumstances of the particular case must be considered. See United States v. Bowser, 497 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 419 U.S. 857, 95 S.Ct. 105, 42 L.Ed.2d 91 (1974). It is especially important to consider the amount of violence or threat of danger to people. See Hart v. Coiner, supra.

In this case, the threat of danger to people was extremely small. Thacker broke into an empty business office while the business was closed. He was unarmed. He used no explosives or incendiary devices or drills to open the safe. He threatened no one personally and was not a physical threat to the safety of passers-by or neighbors.

*378 (b) The legislative purpose for the statutorily permissible punishment.- — There is no legislative history of N.C.G.S. § 14-89.1, nor has any North Carolina case law been located, that articulates the reason why the North Carolina legislature authorized a life sentence for safecracking.

Reasons can perhaps be inferred from the above-quoted passage from respondents’ motion to dismiss. Safecracking is sometimes accompanied by the use of dangerous explosives and is often a sophisticated crime committed by professional safecrackers. This inference is supported by the Committee Comment to the Ohio Revised Code § 2911.31 which makes safecracking a felony punishable by not more than ten years. The Committee stated:

“Safecracking is viewed as a moderately serious offense, first because it usually involves a burglary or breaking and entering which is difficult to prove, and second because it requires some skill and practice, which suggests that cracksmen can be considered ‘professional’ criminals.”

The reasons for allowing an unusually long sentence for safecracking do not, however, apply to this case. From the manner in which the crime was committed (using only manual force and tools found on the premises), it is apparent that Thacker is not a professional safecracker. He had no special tools nor skills nor safecracking devices. If anything, his past record shows he is a professional at breaking and entering, a crime which if it is done with intent to commit larceny carries a maximum penalty of ten years. N.C.G.S. §§ 14-54 and 14-2.

Thus, no legislative purpose is fulfilled by imposing a sentence on Thacker of 48 to 50 years.

(c) Punishment imposed in other jurisdictions for the same crime. — Statutes of other states have been reviewed, and a summary is attached, [see APPENDIX A] Other states that have statutes that define “safe-cracking” to include opening a safe by mechanical means as well as by use of explosives and torches, including statutes repealed since petitioner’s conviction, include three states which have statutory maximum penalties of ten years or less, four which have statutory maximum penalties of twenty-one years or less, two which have maximum penalties of life imprisonment, and one state which has a minimum penalty of five years with no maximum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rummel v. Estelle
445 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
445 F. Supp. 376, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thacker-v-garrison-ncwd-1978.