iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Cruel and Unusual Punishment			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(People v. Jefferson)
 

Criminal Law-Cruel and Unusual Punishment-Constitutional Law
(People v. Jefferson)

IV

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Defendant argues his sentence of 50 years to life under the Three Strikes law “is simply barbaric under the circumstances of this case and this defendant, even considering the notion of recidivism.”  He asserts the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offenses in violation of the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and/or unusual punishment.  We disagree.

The Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution contains a “narrow proportionality principle” that “applies to noncapital sentences” by which a court determines whether a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  (Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, 997 [115 L.Ed.2d 836, 866].)  “‘The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence.  Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’”  (Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11 [155 L.Ed.2d 108, 119], citations omitted.)  To apply this principle, courts compare the gravity of the offense with the harshness of the penalty.  (Id. at p. 28.)  The gravity of the offense also takes account of the defendant’s recidivism and the legislative polices supporting the Three Strikes law.  (Id. at pp. 29-30.)  A court is not mandated to compare the punishment within and between jurisdictions for purposes of the Eighth Amendment test.  (Id. at pp. 23-24.)

California applies a similar test for determining whether a punishment violates the California Constitution’s ban on cruel or unusual punishment, but also compares the punishment with other punishments both in and outside California.  A sentence violates the state ban if it “is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.”  (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424.)  Courts use three guidelines to determine whether a punishment shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.  They are:  (1) examining the nature of the offense and the offender (similar to the federal test), with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society; (2) comparing the challenged penalty with the punishments prescribed in the same jurisdiction for different offenses; and (3) comparing the challenged penalty with the punishments prescribed for the same offense in other jurisdictions having an identical or similar constitutional provision.  (In re Lynch, supra, 8 Cal.3d at pp. 425-427.)  Disproportionality need not be established in all three areas.  (People v. Norman (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 221, 230.)

Defendant argues his sentence is constitutionally disproportionate under the first two of the three factors.

A.   Gravity of offense/harshness of penalty on defendant.

Examining the nature of defendant and his offenses does not reveal a disproportionate sentence in relation to the crimes committed.  The jury convicted defendant of three counts of battery upon a correctional officer.  The crime is a felony subject to a two, three, or four-year consecutive term of imprisonment.  (§ 4501.5.) 

Defendant was also punished for his recidivism.  The jury determined defendant, who at sentencing was age 28, had been convicted previously of six strikes:  one for first degree murder and five for robbery with firearm use.  His committing three more felonies demonstrated defendant remained a violent threat to society.

Defendant argues the sentence was unconscionable due to his mental illness.  However, most of the experts and the sanity phase jury determined defendant was legally sane at the time he committed the crimes.  Under these circumstances, we conclude the punishment is not grossly disproportionate to the defendant’s individual culpability.

B.   California punishments for different offenses

On this prong, defendant argues his sentence is not in proportion to punishments California law imposes on other crimes.  Defendant’s comparison to other crimes is flawed because his sentence of 50 years to life is for two felony convictions sentenced consecutively (with a third sentence stayed) and is based on six prior felony convictions, while the length of imprisonment he cites for other crimes relates only to a conviction on one count. 

Defendant also argues the punishment is disproportionate because the Three Strikes law punishes recidivists significantly more than other recidivism sentencing statutes.  That may be so, but there is now no doubt the mere fact of imposing a sentence under the Three Strikes law as opposed to older recidivism sentencing statutes does not violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.  (Ewing v. California, supra, 155 L.Ed.2d at pp. 24-28.) 

Based on the above, we conclude defendant’s sentence of 50 years to life does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment in violation of federal and state constitutional law.

People v. Jefferson 6/15/04 CA3

Jun 15 2004

C041274 [PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Jefferson 6/15/04 CA3

California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US | California Appeals
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | California Writs
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com       
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos | United States History | Spanish