Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2016After Bruegger, federal case law clarified the “lexicon for Eighth Amendment analysis no longer includes the terms ‘facial challenge’ and ‘as- applied challenge.’ Instead, the defendant must challenge his sentence under the ‘categorical’ approach or make a ‘gross proportionality challenge to [the] 10 particular defendant’s sentence.’” State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 639-40 (Iowa 2012) (citing Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 60 (2010)). 2015He also contends the sentence he received is grossly disproportionate because fifty years is overly harsh for a first-time, nonviolent offense.7 7 Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 61 (2011), “[T]he federal lexicon for Eighth Amendment analysis no longer includes the terms ‘facial challenge’ and ‘as-applied challenge.’” State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 , 639–40 (Iowa 2012). | 6 | 11 |
Estelle v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . 2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . | 4 | 4 |
State of Iowa v. Charles James David Olivergreen2 sentences2020“The federal lexicon for Eighth Amendment analysis no longer includes the terms ‘facial challenge’ and ‘as-applied challenge.’” State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 , 639–40 (Iowa 2012). 2016After Bruegger, federal case law clarified the “lexicon for Eighth Amendment analysis no longer includes the terms ‘facial challenge’ and ‘as- applied challenge.’ Instead, the defendant must challenge his sentence under the ‘categorical’ approach or make a ‘gross proportionality challenge to [the] 10 particular defendant’s sentence.’” State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 639-40 (Iowa 2012) (citing Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 60 (2010)). | 3 | 5 |
Gregg v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j 2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j | 2 | 2 |
Andrew Conley v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2015App. Ct. 2015) (“Under Miller, a juvenile defendant can be sentenced to natural life in prison without parole, so long as the natural life sentence is at the trial court’s discretion and not mandatory.”); Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 879 (Ind. 2012) (“Our holding that [Indiana’s discretionary] life- without-parole sentence is not unconstitutional is not altered by Miller.”); State v. Fletcher, 149 So. 3d 934, 941 (La. 2015Instead, defendant’s sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment is just and appropriate in light of defendant's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller.”); Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) ("Under Miller , a sentence of life without the possibility of parole remains a constitutionally permissible sentencing option.”); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 , 754 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation in a discre | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2015App. Ct. 2015) (“Under Miller, a juvenile defendant can be sentenced to natural life in prison without parole, so long as the natural life sentence is at the trial court’s discretion and not mandatory.”); Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 879 (Ind. 2012) (“Our holding that [Indiana’s discretionary] life- without-parole sentence is not unconstitutional is not altered by Miller.”); State v. Fletcher, 149 So. 3d 934, 941 (La. 2015Instead, defendant’s sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment is just and appropriate in light of defendant's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller.”); Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) ("Under Miller , a sentence of life without the possibility of parole remains a constitutionally permissible sentencing option.”); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 , 754 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation in a discre | 2 | 2 |
Foster v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Instead, defendant’s sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment is just and appropriate in light of defendant's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller.”); Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) ("Under Miller , a sentence of life without the possibility of parole remains a constitutionally permissible sentencing option.”); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 , 754 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation in a discre 2015Instead, defendant’s sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment is just and appropriate in light of defendant's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller.”); Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) ("Under Miller , a sentence of life without the possibility of parole remains a constitutionally permissible sentencing option.”); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 , 754 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation in a discre | 2 | 2 |
Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette Countygreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 939.615 (2009) (providing that a sex offender may be sentenced to lifetime supervision); see also United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir.2005) (“[W]e conclude that a lifetime term of supervised release is not grossly disproportionate to his child pornography offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2552A, and his Eighth Amendment claim therefore fails.”). 2009See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 939.615 (2009) (providing that a sex offender may be sentenced to lifetime supervision); see also United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir.2005) (“[W]e conclude that that a lifetime term of supervised release is not grossly disproportionate to his child pornography offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2552A, and his Eighth Amendment claim therefore fails.”). | 2 | 2 |
Roper v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . 2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . | 1 | 5 |
Miller v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate 2013In determining whether a criminal penalty amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court looks to contemporary norms, or, in the court’s phraseology, from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord Miller, 567 U.S. at - , 132 S.Ct. at 2463 , 183 L.Ed.2d at 417 ; Graham , 560 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d at 835 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 , 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 , opinion modified on den | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dullgreen2 sentences2017Id. at 647-48. 2017Id. at 647-48. | 1 | 2 |
In re Disciplinary Action Against Watersgreen1 sentence2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate | 1 | 1 |
State v. Linkgreen1 sentence2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate | 1 | 1 |
State of Florida v. Budry Michelgreen1 sentence2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keaira Browngreen1 sentence2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tate Banks v. People Jensen v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2019Id. (citation omitted) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Tate, 352 P.3d 959, 970 (Colo. 2015) (holding Miller does not prohibit a mandatory minimum sentence of life with possibility of parole after forty years); State v. Taylor G., 110 A.3d 338 , 347 (Conn. 2015) (“The limitations that mandatory minimum sentences place on a trial court’s discretion, however, do not automatically constitute an eighth amendment violation.”); State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3, 4, 8 (Fla. 2018) (holding that a statute requiring a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree murder does not violate | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Instead, defendant’s sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment is just and appropriate in light of defendant's age, maturity, and the other factors discussed in Miller.”); Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) ("Under Miller , a sentence of life without the possibility of parole remains a constitutionally permissible sentencing option.”); Foster v. State, 294 Ga. 383 , 754 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation in a discre | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Anthony Allen Hoeckgreen1 sentence2015Considering only the Eighth Amendment issue raised on appeal, the court held: “For a juvenile previously sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime, the appropriate remedy under Graham was to sever the 12 parole ineligibility from the juvenile’s sentence and sentence the juvenile to life in prison with the possibility of parole.” State v. Hoeck, 843 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 2014) (endorsing procedure followed in Bonilla, 791 N.W.2d at 701 ). | 1 | 1 |
Ewing v. Californiagreen2 sentences2013Although some justices have disagreed with this interpretation, see Ewing, 538 U.S. at 31-32 , 123 S.Ct. at 1190-91 , 155 L.Ed.2d at 124 (Scalia, J., concurring), the Supreme Court has thus repeatedly rejected a narrow originalist or historical approach to the Eighth Amendment. 2013Although some justices have disagreed with this interpretation, see Ewing, 538 U.S. at 31-32 , 123 S.Ct. at 1190-91 , 155 L.Ed.2d at 124 (Scalia, J., concurring), the Supreme Court has thus repeatedly rejected a narrow originalist or historical approach to the Eighth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
| Lockyer v. Andradegreen | 1 | 1 |
Stanford v. Kentuckyred2 sentences2013In determining whether a criminal penalty amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court looks to contemporary norms, or, in the court’s phraseology, from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord Miller, 567 U.S. at - , 132 S.Ct. at 2463 , 183 L.Ed.2d at 417 ; Graham , 560 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d at 835 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 , 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 , opinion modified on den 2013In determining whether a criminal penalty amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court looks to contemporary norms, or, in the court’s phraseology, from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord Miller, 567 U.S. at - , 132 S.Ct. at 2463 , 183 L.Ed.2d at 417 ; Graham , 560 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d at 835 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 , 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 , opinion modified on den | 1 | 1 |
| Trop v. Dullesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Furman v. Georgiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brueggergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harmelin v. Michigangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Augustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rutherford v. Crosby
green
2 sentences2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . 2017Proportionality is key in an Eighth Amendment analysis, and we view proportionality according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 , 97 S. Ct. 285, 290 (1976)). 10 In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper that the sentence of capital punishment when imposed upon a juvenile violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 560 , 126 S. Ct. 1190 . | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2022Id. 1999Id. | 2 | 1999–2022 |
Whitley v. Albers
green
1 sentence2022“The general requirement that an Eighth Amendment claimant allege and prove the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain should also be applied with due regard for differences in the kind of conduct against which an Eighth Amendment objection is lodged.” Id. at 320 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j 2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j 2018The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the 'clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 2247, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 , 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 2953, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins , 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 ); see also Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 174-76, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2925-26, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (basing Eighth Amendment analysis on state legislative j | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rummel v. Estelle
green
2 sentences2018As noted by one observer, the United States Supreme Court in Rummel v. Estelle , 445 U.S. 263 , 280, 100 S.Ct. 1133 , 1142, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), cited the prisoner's eligibility for parole after twelve years as a factor in upholding a sentence from Eighth Amendment challenge. 2018As noted by one observer, the United States Supreme Court in Rummel v. Estelle , 445 U.S. 263 , 280, 100 S.Ct. 1133 , 1142, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), cited the prisoner's eligibility for parole after twelve years as a factor in upholding a sentence from Eighth Amendment challenge. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Moore v. Texas
green
2 sentences2018Moore v. Texas , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039 , 1056-57, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (first quoting Atkins , 536 U.S. at 312 , 122 S.Ct. at 2247 ; then quoting Gregg , 428 U.S. at 175 , 96 S.Ct. at 2926 ; then quoting id. at 176 , 96 S.Ct. at 2926 ; then quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 564 , 125 S.Ct. at 1192 ). 2018Moore v. Texas , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039 , 1056-57, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (first quoting Atkins , 536 U.S. at 312 , 122 S.Ct. at 2247 ; then quoting Gregg , 428 U.S. at 175 , 96 S.Ct. at 2926 ; then quoting id. at 176 , 96 S.Ct. at 2926 ; then quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 564 , 125 S.Ct. at 1192 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Julio Bonilla Vs. State Of Iowa
green
1 sentence2015Considering only the Eighth Amendment issue raised on appeal, the court held: “For a juvenile previously sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime, the appropriate remedy under Graham was to sever the 12 parole ineligibility from the juvenile’s sentence and sentence the juvenile to life in prison with the possibility of parole.” State v. Hoeck, 843 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 2014) (endorsing procedure followed in Bonilla, 791 N.W.2d at 701 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis Carp
green
1 sentence2015It merely required that a sentencing court consider mitigating facts related to the juvenile's youth before imposing a sentence without benefit of parole.”); People v. Carp, 496 Mich. 440 , 852 N.W.2d 801 , 841 (2014), petitions for cert. filed sub nom. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Kennedy v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Snipes v. Horton
green
2 sentences2013In determining whether a criminal penalty amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court looks to contemporary norms, or, in the court’s phraseology, from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord Miller, 567 U.S. at - , 132 S.Ct. at 2463 , 183 L.Ed.2d at 417 ; Graham , 560 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d at 835 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 , 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 , opinion modified on den 2013In determining whether a criminal penalty amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, the Supreme Court looks to contemporary norms, or, in the court’s phraseology, from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 642 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord Miller, 567 U.S. at - , 132 S.Ct. at 2463 , 183 L.Ed.2d at 417 ; Graham , 560 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d at 835 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 , 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 , opinion modified on den | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.