proportionality clause in Indiana

2007A criminal penalty violates the proportionality clause “ ‘only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of the offense.’ ” Foreman v. State, 865 N.E.2d at 655 (quoting Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind.1993)) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

2007A criminal penalty violates the proportionality clause “only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind.1993) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

2014Id. (citing Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind.1993)).

2010Our supreme court has held that a finding of unconstitutionality pursuant to the proportionality clause should be reserved for "penalties so disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to amount to clear constitutional infirmity sufficient to overcome the presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislate decisions about penalties." State v. Moss-Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109, 112 (Ind.1997) (quotations and citations omitted).

2012Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759, 766 (Ind. 1990).

2012Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759, 766 (Ind. 1990).

2016The proportionality clause is violated “only when the criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Id. at 1289-90 .

2016The proportionality clause “requires us to review whether a sentence is not only within statutory parameters, but also constitutional as applied to the particular defendant.” Id.

2014The next constitutional provision cited by Hazelwood is the proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides, "All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense." Brown v. State, 856 N.E.2d 739, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).

2014The next constitutional provision cited by Hazelwood is the proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides, “All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Brown v. State, 856 N.E.2d 739, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).

2007“Stated differently, a legislatively determined penalty will be deemed unconstitutional by reason of its length only if it is ‘so severe and entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people.’” Id. (quoting Teer v. State, 738 N.E.2d 283, 290 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted), trans. denied).

2007Stated differently, a legislatively determined penalty will be deemed unconstitutional by reason of its length only if it is “so severe and entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people.” Teer v. State, 738 N.E.2d 283, 290 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted), trans. denied.

2020See Matthews v. State, 944 N.E.2d 29, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“Because the three crimes do not have identical elements, the proportionality clause of our Constitution is not offended if our legislature assigns different sentences to them.”).

2018Id.

2020Eighth Amendment and Article 1, section 16 [32] J.B.E. also challenges the constitutionality of her commitment to the DOC under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and the proportionality clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, section 16. [33] The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 19 of 22 punishments inflicted.” Proportionality is central and “[e]mbodied in

2019See United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir. 1994) (considering “the role and culpability of the owner”); Medlock v. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 27S04-1702-MI-70 | October 28, 2019 Page 11 of 33 One 1985 Jeep Cherokee, 470 S.E.2d 373, 377 (S.C. 1996).4 The State points to no other federal circuit or state supreme court cases—and we have found none—that exclude a proportionality test from the excessiveness inquiry.

2016A sentence may be unconstitutional by reason of its length if it is so severe and entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed as “to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of a reasonable people.” Pittman v. State, 45 N.E.3d 805, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [13] Randolph argues that his sentence violates the proportionality clause because he was convicted of two robberies that were committed within minutes of each Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1512-CR-2358 | August 24, 2016 Page 6 of 10 other and received different sentences for each robb

2016A sentence may be unconstitutional by reason of its length if it is so severe and entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed as “to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of a reasonable people.” Pittman v. State, 45 N.E.3d 805, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [13] Randolph argues that his sentence violates the proportionality clause because he was convicted of two robberies that were committed within minutes of each Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1512-CR-2358 | August 24, 2016 Page 6 of 10 other and received different sentences for each robb

2016Id. [20] A criminal penalty violates the proportionality clause “‘only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of the offense.’” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1289 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Phelps v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1009, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 978 (2015).

2016Proportionality Clause [19] The proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution provides, “All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Hazelwood v. State, 3 N.E.3d 39, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

2012Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 133, n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.

2012Pedraza v. State, 887 N.E.2d 77, 80 (Ind. 2008). 6 More particularly, Ogle claims that the sentence violates Article I, section 16 of the Indiana Constitution.4 The proportionality analysis of a habitual offender penalty has two components: (1) we should inquire into the “nature” and gravity of the present felony; and (2) we should consider the “nature” of the predicate felonies upon which the habitual offender sentence is based.

2011See, e.g., Mann, 895 N.E.2d at 124 (differences in requisite mens rea could rationally lead legislature to assign different sentences to crimes).

2008See Coleman v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1335, 1339 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that an enhancement for dealing when the amount of the drug involved weighs three grams or more does not violate the proportionality requirement of Article I, section 16), trans. denied.

2008See Coleman v. State, 588 N.E.2d 1335, 1339 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that an enhancement for dealing when the amount of the drug involved weighs three grams or more does not violate the proportionality requirement of Article I, section 16), trans. denied.

2006Stated more precisely, a sentence violates the proportionality clause where it is so severe and entirely out of proportion to the gravity of offense committed as " 'to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of a reasonable people?" Pritscher v. State, 675 N.E.2d 727, 731 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Cox v. State, 203 Ind. 544, 549 , 181 N.E. 469 , 472 (1932)).