Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s abuse of discretion claim because the trial judge had considered the mitigating circumstances set forth in the presentence report and imposed a sentence that was “far less than the allowable statutory maximum.” See Chick, 941 F.Supp. at 51. Our analysis in Chick recognized that, under Williams v. Oklahoma, the sentencing process is not wholly immune from judicial review. The punishment must fit the convict as well as the crime. See, e.g., Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (ruling that due process requires the trial judge to consider all information bearing on the circumstances of the crime and the defendant); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) (<HOLDING>). For example, the Third Circuit Court of
holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding due process requires a sentencing court not to give unwarranted weight to allegedly unreliable hearsay information to enhance sentence holding that due process requires appellate courts to scrutinize the sentencing process to insure that sentences are based on reliable information holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that due process of law requires all courts to insure that elementary fairness toward one charged with an offense is not infringed