Arheel's Uncle
Senior Reporter
On September 9, 1993, Dawn R., the twenty-one-year-old victim, was walking to a party to meet her husband.� Griffin and two juveniles approached her with the intent to rob her.� Griffin possessed a firearm and threatened the victim.� She was ordered to remove her clothing.� Griffin grabbed her arm and forced her to the side of a nearby house.� She was ordered to get down on her hands and knees and she was sexually assaulted.� She was then forced to another area and assaulted repeatedly by each of the three young men.� She was also repeatedly threatened that she would be killed if she did not do what the men asked.� The incident occurred over approximately a fifty-minute-time-period.
����������������������� After Griffin and his friends left, Dawn was assisted by a homeowner in the area.� The homeowner gave her a robe to wear and phoned police.� Griffin and his friends were subsequently arrested and charged.� Griffin, who was seventeen years old at the time, was waived into adult court.� His friends were adjudicated in the juvenile system. [ages 13, 15]
����������������������� The State offered to dismiss three of the counts if Griffin would plead guilty to the remaining five counts.� Griffin rejected the offer and the case was scheduled for trial.� On the date the trial was to commence, Griffin informed the court that he wanted to plead guilty to all eight counts.� The State agreed to recommend the same sentence it intended to make pursuant to the plea agreement, a prison sentence of 60 to 75 years.� The trial court sentenced Griffin to 180 years in prison out of a possible maximum sentence of 195 years.
...
����������������������� Griffin argues that his sentence satisfies this standard because:� (1) his co-actors, who were 13 years old and 15 years old at the time, will only be under supervision until age 21; (2) the 180 year sentence is meaningless because he will not live long enough to serve 180 years; (3) the multiple crimes committed were closely related and occurred in a short time span; (4) the trial court did not have certain information at the time of sentencing regarding Griffin's psychological evaluation; (5) the trial court applied non-applicable aggravating circumstances in imposing the sentence; (6) the trial court did not consider applicable mitigating circumstances; and (7) Griffin eventually told his co-actors to leave the victim alone.� We are not persuaded that any of these factors transform the sentence that Griffin received into one that �shocks public sentiment and violates the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper.�
