But it would be interesting to know if any other crimes involved drawing a weapon.  If he hadn't been incarcerated for as long as he had so he'd think to "find Gawd" in the first 3 months, would he have gone on to commit murder?

You would think he would have understood the rules after the 1st time and damn sure got them after screwing up the 2nd time.  And yet he went and stole something again.  

So what freedom and liberty are you talking about?  The freedom to walk up to someone elses property and the liberty to steal from them repeatedly?

At the completion of the sentencing hearing and arguments by the parties, the trial court found that the appellant, after having been previously convicted of seven felonies in Alabama, committed the offense of robbery in the first degree. The court therefore sentenced appellant to imprisonment for life without parole, pursuant to Section 13A-5-9(c)(3), Code of Alabama 1975.

The judgment entries evidenced five previous convictions for grand larceny and two convictions for second degree burglary

Lock him up.  He should have changed after the first time.  How many crimes did he commit that he didn't get caught?

  I don't have a problem with laws that -- actually I think it would be incredibly stupid not to-- impose incrementally more severe punishments on repeat offenders, but I don't think life without is appropriate merely for an accumulation of lesser offenses.  

  This particular case  is compelling not  because of the lack of seriousness or number of offenses he committed  render his being imprisoned for a very long time unjust (8 felonies including at least one armed robbery by one's ear;y 30s suggests a certain lawlessness) but because people who know him believe he has changed despite having been a persistent  criminal.

  If someone that prone to crime can change and be worthy of release despite his past so can many others.

So, for my own edification on such matters, let me ask you for your professional opinion, Jeralyn, and I think you'll understand where I'm coming from, since you yourself were recently the victim of a home invasion and robbery.

How would you have dealt with this guy had you been the sentencing judge, rather than a defense counsel?

Absent any sentencing restrictions like "three strikes" to tie your hands, and you were allowed to consider his prior arrests and convictions, what are the types of possible mitigating factors that you'd be on the lookout for as a sentencing judge, prior to passing judgment on him? And if you determined him to be a habitual offender, what would you consider a fair sentence for his conduct?

Finally, a rather personal question -- and if you choose to punt rather than answer, I'll understand:

As a practicing criminal defense attorney, would you ever seriously consider accepting an appointment to the bench, were such an appointment ever to be offered to you by the Governor of Colorado?

(I sincerely hope you don't elect judges there -- ever since I saw California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird unceremoniously dumped by my then-home state's voters in 1986, simply because of her views on capital punishment, I've had an aversion to seeing magistrates forced to compete for public affection in the political arena.)

Great post. It certainly got me thinking.