20 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2022After the United States Supreme Court held that Miller’s substantive Eighth Amendment rule was retroactively applicable in state criminal post-conviction proceedings, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 212 (2016), Oglesby filed an amended MAR seeking “a resentencing hearing in which his unconstitutional life without parole sentence is converted to a life with parole sentence” and to be “sentenced to one consolidated sentence of life with parole or to have all his sentences in 02-CRS60369 [murder, kidnapping and attempted robbery] and 02-CRS-60325 [two counts of robbery with a dangerous 2022These statements do not support the State’s argument that Jones countermanded previously decided substantive Eighth Amendment doctrine. ¶ 37 Rather, the “explicit language addressing the precise question before” the Supreme Court in Jones demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s procedural holding in that case did not displace “Miller’s substantive holding that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity.” Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 210 (emphasis added). | 5 | 5 |
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fonggreen2 sentences2022State v. Soto-Fong, 250 Ariz. 1 , 8, 474 P.3d 34 , 41 (2020) (citation omitted). “[G]enerally, courts do not permit defendants to ‘stack’ their crimes to generate an Eighth Amendment claim,” id. at 8, 474 P.3d at 41, but violent juvenile crime sprees may yield a different result in North Carolina under the majority’s reasoning. ¶ 82 Here the trial court appropriately considered defendant’s individual circumstances in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment. 2022State v. Soto-Fong, 250 Ariz. 1 , 8, 474 P.3d 34 , 41 (2020) (citation omitted). “[G]enerally, courts do not permit defendants to ‘stack’ their crimes to generate an Eighth Amendment claim,” id. at 8, 474 P.3d at 41, but violent juvenile crime sprees may yield a different result in North Carolina under the majority’s reasoning. ¶ 82 Here the trial court appropriately considered defendant’s individual circumstances in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment. | 2 | 2 |
Darnell Cooper and Anthony Davis v. Michael Caseygreen2 sentences2005See also Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914 , 917 (7th Cir.1996) (officers' knowledge was established by evidence "that the plaintiffs directed their request to the world at large, as it were, by screaming from their cells, rather than directing the request to a specific guard" when "[t]he defendants were all stationed in the plaintiffs' wing of the prison"). 2005See also Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 917 (7th Cir. 1996) (officers’ knowledge was established by evidence “that the plaintiffs directed their request to the world at large, as it were, by screaming from their cells, rather than directing the request to a specific guard” when “[t]he defendants were all stationed in the plaintiffs’ wing of the prison”). | 2 | 2 |
Toby R. Chavez v. Gilbert \Gib\" Cadygreen2 sentences2005See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 -05 , 97 S.Ct. at 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 260 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff's worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff 2005Ed. 2d at 260 , 97 S. Ct. at 291 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff’s worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff’s repeated request to see the doctor | 2 | 2 |
David Sherrod v. Darlene Lingle, R.N. Mary Geiger, R.N. Betty Lorance, R.N. C.P. Ramaswamy, M.D. Rajendra Shroff, M.D. Franklin Hospital Districtgreen2 sentences2005See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 -05 , 97 S.Ct. at 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 260 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff's worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff 2005Ed. 2d at 260 , 97 S. Ct. at 291 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff’s worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff’s repeated request to see the doctor | 2 | 2 |
Estelle v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2005See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 -05 , 97 S.Ct. at 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 260 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff's worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff 2005See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 -05 , 97 S.Ct. at 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 260 (Eighth Amendment violated when prison guards deny or delay access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatment); Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611-12 (even though the plaintiff was not entirely ignored by the staff, evidence that they disregarded the plaintiff's worsening condition due to a ruptured appendix over the days following his receiving medical care supported a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Chavez, 207 F.3d at 906 (evidence supported Eighth Amendment claim when officers disregarded the plaintiff | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2025While a defendant may have an “Eighth Amendment claim if the sentencer expressly refuses as a matter of law to consider relevant mitigating circumstances,” id. at 1320 n.7,6 “Eddings . . . permits a sentencer to find mitigating evidence unpersuasive,” Thornell v. Jones, 144 S. Ct. 1302 , 1305 (2024). 2025It starts by pointing to Mr. Tirado’s petition for discretionary review, where he contended that “[t]he Court of Appeals did not consider whether [his] sentence was unconstitutional under Article I, [Section] 27 of the North Carolina Constitution, which provides individuals with increased protections.” In that same petition, Mr. Tirado also argued that the decision below misapplied Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021), by “fail[ing] to consider not just [his] as-applied Eighth Amendment claim, but his claim that his sentence was unconstitutional under the more protective North Carolina | 1 | 8 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2018Only in exceedingly rare noncapital cases will sentences imposed be so grossly disproportionate as to be considered cruel or unusual. *364 Green , 348 N.C. at 609 , 502 S.E.2d at 831-32 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 1 Thus, in order to prevail in his Eighth Amendment challenge, Defendant must demonstrate that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense for which he was convicted. 2018Only in exceedingly rare noncapital cases will sentences imposed be so grossly disproportionate as to be considered cruel or unusual. *364 Green , 348 N.C. at 609 , 502 S.E.2d at 831-32 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 1 Thus, in order to prevail in his Eighth Amendment challenge, Defendant must demonstrate that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense for which he was convicted. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dorsettgreen2 sentences2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). 2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntergreen2 sentences2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). 2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cortes-Serranogreen2 sentences2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). 2009App. ___, ___, 673 S.E.2d 756, 765 (2009) (citing State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 , 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229 , 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967)). | 1 | 1 |
John Wayne Duvall v. Frank Keating, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, Gary Gibson, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiarygreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d at 225 ; see also Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The Constitution of the United States does not require that a state have a clemency procedure . . . .”); Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d at 1062 (finding no basis for the plaintiffs’ allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation within the clemency context). 2001Ed. 2d at 225 ; see also Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The Constitution of the United States does not require that a state have a clemency procedure . . . .”); Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d at 1062 (finding no basis for the plaintiffs’ allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation within the clemency context). | 1 | 1 |
Mose Young v. Dee Joyce Hayes, Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, and Alfred D. Luebbers, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Centergreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d at 225 ; see also Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The Constitution of the United States does not require that a state have a clemency procedure . . . .”); Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d at 1062 (finding no basis for the plaintiffs’ allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation within the clemency context). 2001Ed. 2d at 225 ; see also Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The Constitution of the United States does not require that a state have a clemency procedure . . . .”); Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d at 1062 (finding no basis for the plaintiffs’ allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation within the clemency context). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2022As recounted above, Eighth Amendment doctrine assesses a challenged punishment by reference to practices in other jurisdictions, and ultimately requires a court to “determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment in question violates the [United States] Constitution.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 . 2022As recounted above, Eighth Amendment doctrine assesses a challenged punishment by reference to practices in other jurisdictions, and ultimately requires a court to “determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment in question violates the [United States] Constitution.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 . | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Roper v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2022When examining the sentencing of juvenile defendants in the crucible of the Eighth Amendment, we begin with a brief review of the pertinent precedent existing at the time of defendant’s sentencing hearing, including—in sequential order of their issuance—the opinions in Roper, Graham v. Florida, Miller, and Montgomery. ¶ 33 In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the Eighth Amendment “bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders,” specifically those defendants who were “older than 15 but younger than 18 years” of age at the time that they committed the u 2022When examining the sentencing of juvenile defendants in the crucible of the Eighth Amendment, we begin with a brief review of the pertinent precedent existing at the time of defendant’s sentencing hearing, including—in sequential order of their issuance—the opinions in Roper, Graham v. Florida, Miller, and Montgomery. ¶ 33 In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the Eighth Amendment “bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders,” specifically those defendants who were “older than 15 but younger than 18 years” of age at the time that they committed the u | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Trop v. Dulles
green
2 sentences2022Roper, 543 N.C. at 560–61 (citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 , 100–101 (1958) (plurality opinion)). ¶ 32 Having identified this framework for purposes of Eighth Amendment analysis in the instant case, we recognize that a distinct proportionality analysis has been applied to another class of defendants: offenders who were juveniles at the time that they committed their respective crimes. 2022Roper, 543 N.C. at 560–61 (citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 , 100–101 (1958) (plurality opinion)). ¶ 32 Having identified this framework for purposes of Eighth Amendment analysis in the instant case, we recognize that a distinct proportionality analysis has been applied to another class of defendants: offenders who were juveniles at the time that they committed their respective crimes. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2020We note that a narrow reading of both Roper and Graham was expressly rejected in Miller; there, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied a defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge on the grounds that “Roper and Graham were ‘narrowly tailored’ to their contexts,” and the Supreme Court reversed. 567 U.S. at 467 , 183 L. 2020We note that a narrow reading of both Roper and Graham was expressly rejected in Miller; there, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied a defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge on the grounds that “Roper and Graham were ‘narrowly tailored’ to their contexts,” and the Supreme Court reversed. 567 U.S. at 467 , 183 L. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Todd
green
1 sentence2009To determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate to an offense for purposes of Eighth Amendment analysis, defendant must show "`abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness or injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.'" Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Lockett v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1996Defendant argues further that an offer of proof is unnecessary to establish an independent Eighth Amendment violation in these situations because Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 57 L. 1996Defendant argues further that an offer of proof is unnecessary to establish an independent Eighth Amendment violation in these situations because Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 57 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
David Daniel Rushing v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
green
2 sentences1991The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found an eighth amendment violation under Booth upon the introduction of evidence that the victim was a “fine person” and “would do anything he could to help anybody anywhere.” Rushing v. Butler, 868 F.2d 800 (5th Cir. 1989). 1991The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found an eighth amendment violation under Booth upon the introduction of evidence that the victim was a "fine person" and "would do anything he could to help anybody anywhere." Rushing v. Butler, 868 F.2d 800 (5th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.