106 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoops v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Further, before a proportionality analysis is reached, the sentence must be shown to be “grossly disproportionate to the crime charged.” Id. (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So. 2d 521, 538 (Miss. 1996)). 2010Furthermore, "[w]hen a `threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of "gross disproportionality"' the proportionality analysis of Solem is used." White, 742 So.2d at 1135 (¶ 37) (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996)); ( see also Long v. State, 33 So.3d 1122 (¶ 26) (Miss.2010)) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)) ("... | 15 | 20 |
cluster 8405green2 sentences1998The proportionality analysis of Solem is to apply when "`... a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of `gross disproportionality'.'" Id. (quoting Smallwood v. Johnson, 73 F.3d 1343, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996)). 1997The proportionality analysis of Solem is to apply when "`...a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of 'gross disproportionality'.'" Id. (quoting Smallwood v. Johnson, 73 F.3d 1343, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996)). | 6 | 6 |
Solem v. Helmred2 sentences2026The Court acknowledged that “[a] sentence that is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime committed is subject to attack on Eighth Amendment grounds applying the proportionality test from Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-91 (1983).” Id. at (¶15). 2026The Court acknowledged that “[a] sentence that is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime committed is subject to attack on Eighth Amendment grounds applying the proportionality test from Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-91 (1983).” Id. at (¶15). | 5 | 61 |
Clowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Instead, Judge Clark, in essence, applied the proportionality test as sanctioned by this Court in Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 765 (Miss.1988), and sentenced Glidden to a term of four years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the benefit of parole or probation. ¶ 16. 2011Instead, Judge Clark, in essence, applied the proportionality test as sanctioned by this Court in Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 765 (Miss.1988), and sentenced Glidden to a term of four years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the benefit of parole or probation. ¶ 16. | 4 | 4 |
Wall v. Stategreen2 sentences2010“Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Isom v. State, 928 So.2d 840, 850 (Miss.2006) (quoting Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1114 (Miss.1998)). 2002The Mississippi Supreme Court applied the proportionality analysis in Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1114-15 (¶¶ 29-30) (Miss.1998). | 4 | 4 |
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5390, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9185green2 sentences1998See United States v. 6380 Little Canyon Road, 59 F.3d at 983 (adopting "proportionality test as a check on the instrumentality approach"). 1998See 6380 Little Canyon Road, 59 F.3d at 983 (adopting "proportionality test as a check on the instrumentality approach"). | 4 | 4 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2022And in Harmelin, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized this lack of clarity: that “Solem was scarcely the expression of clear . . . constitutional law,” 501 U.S., at 965 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that in “adher[ing] to the narrow proportionality principle . . . our proportionality decisions have not been clear or consistent in all respects,” id., at 996 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), that “we lack clear objective standards to distinguish between sentences for different terms of years,” id., at 1001 , 111 2022And in Harmelin, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized this lack of clarity: that “Solem was scarcely the expression of clear . . . constitutional law,” 501 U.S., at 965 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that in “adher[ing] to the narrow proportionality principle . . . our proportionality decisions have not been clear or consistent in all respects,” id., at 996 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), that “we lack clear objective standards to distinguish between sentences for different terms of years,” id., at 1001 , 111 | 3 | 21 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Furthermore, “[wjhen a ‘threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of “gross dispropor-tionality” ’ the proportionality analysis of Solem is used.” White, 742 So.2d at 1135 (¶ 37) (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996)); (see also Long v. State, 33 So.3d 1122 (¶ 26) (Miss.2010)) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)) (“... 2010Furthermore, "[w]hen a `threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of "gross disproportionality"' the proportionality analysis of Solem is used." White, 742 So.2d at 1135 (¶ 37) (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996)); ( see also Long v. State, 33 So.3d 1122 (¶ 26) (Miss.2010)) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)) ("... | 3 | 3 |
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2022The Court set out objective factors that should guide the proportionality analysis in each case: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id. at 292 . ¶17. “[T]o determine if a particular sentence is grossly disproportionate, a court must first compare the gravity of the offense to the severity of the sentence.” Nash v. State, 293 So. 3d 265 , 269 (Miss. 2020) (citing Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 59-60, 13 2022The Court set out objective factors that should guide the proportionality analysis in each case: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id. at 292 . ¶17. “[T]o determine if a particular sentence is grossly disproportionate, a court must first compare the gravity of the offense to the severity of the sentence.” Nash v. State, 293 So. 3d 265 , 269 (Miss. 2020) (citing Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 59-60, 13 | 2 | 5 |
No. 94-6643green2 sentences1998United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 & 429 Hall Street, 74 F.3d 1165, 1170 (11th Cir.1996) (rejecting Chandler court's analysis and instrumentality test). 1998United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 & 429 Hall Street, 74 F.3d 1165, 1170 (11th Cir.1996) (rejecting Chandler court's analysis and instrumentality test). | 2 | 4 |
Robert McGruder v. Steven W. Puckettgreen2 sentences2022Ct. App. 2000) (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Oby v. State, 827 So. 2d 731, 735 (¶12) (“The correct proportionality analysis for a habitual offender sentence does not consider the present offense alone, but within the habitual offender statute.”). 2021Harmelin identifies the narrow proportionality principle contained in the Eighth 7 Amendment, which “does not require strict proportionality between a crime and sentence but rather forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 59-60 (2010)). | 2 | 3 |
Cummings v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Cummings v. State, 29 So.3d 859, 861 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). ¶ 27. 2011See Cummings, 29 So.3d at 861 (¶ 6). | 2 | 3 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Appellant argues that Mississippi's habitual criminal statutes fails the proportionality test as set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) and applied by this Court in Jenkins v. State, 483 So.2d 1330 (Miss. 1986). 1987See also Jenkins v. State, 483 So.2d 1330 (Miss. 1986); Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325, 1331 (Miss. 1986) (Prather, J., dissenting); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612 (Miss. 1985). | 2 | 3 |
Oby v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Ct. App. 2000) (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Oby v. State, 827 So. 2d 731, 735 (¶12) (“The correct proportionality analysis for a habitual offender sentence does not consider the present offense alone, but within the habitual offender statute.”). 2009“The correct proportionality analysis for a habitual offender sentence does not consider the present offense alone, but within the habitual offender statute.” Oby v. State, 827 So.2d 731, 735 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences2019There is no requirement, however, “that a trial court conduct a sua sponte proportionality analysis.” Cook v. State, 106 So. 3d 823, 825 (¶8) (Miss. 2016See Cook v. State, 106 So.3d 823, 825 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2012). | 2 | 2 |
Isom v. Stategreen2 sentences2010“Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Isom v. State, 928 So.2d 840, 850 (Miss.2006) (quoting Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1114 (Miss.1998)). 2009“Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Isom v. State, 928 So. 2d 840, 850 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107, 1114 (Miss. 1998)). | 2 | 2 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2009However, notwithstanding the statutory legality of an imposed sentence, a proportionality attack under the Eighth Amendment may be subject to the three-pronged proportionality analysis set out in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) in cases where a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of "gross disproportionality." Ford v. State, 975 So.2d 859, 869 (Miss.2008). 2009However, notwithstanding the statutory legality of an imposed sentence, a proportionality attack under the Eighth Amendment may be subject to the three-pronged proportionality analysis set out in Salem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) in cases where a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of "gross disproportion-ality.” Ford v. State, 975 So.2d 859, 869 (Miss.2008). | 2 | 2 |
Edwards v. Stategreen2 sentences2009This Court has held that a proportionality review under Solem applies “ ‘only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of “gross dispropor- *744 tionality.” ’ ” Edwards v. State, 800 So.2d 454, 468-69 (Miss.2001) (quoting Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996)). 2008This Court has held that a proportionality review under Solem applies “‘only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of “gross disproportionality.”’” Edwards v. State, 800 So. 2d 454, 468-69 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Hoops v. State, 681 So. 2d 521, 538 (Miss. 1996)). | 2 | 2 |
Horne v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Further, before a proportionality analysis is reached, the sentence must be shown to be “grossly disproportionate to the crime charged.” Id. (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So. 2d 521, 538 (Miss. 1996)). 2011Horne v. State, 825 So.2d 627, 641 (¶ 58) (Miss.2002) (finding fourteen-year-old offender’s proportionality argument procedurally barred for failure to request a proportionality review). | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. at 957 (¶ 21)(citing Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). 2000Williams v. State, 757 So.2d at 957 (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). ¶ 6. | 1 | 2 |
Fleming v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. at 957 (¶ 21)(citing Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). 2000In Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280 (Miss.1992), the Mississippi Supreme Court applied the Solem test: [T]he general rule in this state is that a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute. | 1 | 2 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Hoops v. State , 681 So.2d at 538 ; Young v. State , 731 So.2d 1120 , 1125 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 18. 2000Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d at 538 ; Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (Miss. 1999). ¶18. | 1 | 2 |
Mosley v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Mosley, 104 So. 3d at 841 (¶8). | 1 | 1 |
| Nichols v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($137,325.00) in United States Currency v. State Ex Rel. Pelahatchie Police Departmentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skinner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
One (1) 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 v. Panola County Narcotics Task Forcegreen1 sentence2022Narcotics Task Force, 169 So. 3d 967, 970 (¶6) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
| Ewing v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kern v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitlock v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Field v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wells v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huntley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bonner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Triplett v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gray v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holt v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2022And in Harmelin, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized this lack of clarity: that “Solem was scarcely the expression of clear . . . constitutional law,” 501 U.S., at 965 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that in “adher[ing] to the narrow proportionality principle . . . our proportionality decisions have not been clear or consistent in all respects,” id., at 996 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), that “we lack clear objective standards to distinguish between sentences for different terms of years,” id., at 1001 , 111 2022And in Harmelin, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized this lack of clarity: that “Solem was scarcely the expression of clear . . . constitutional law,” 501 U.S., at 965 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that in “adher[ing] to the narrow proportionality principle . . . our proportionality decisions have not been clear or consistent in all respects,” id., at 996 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), that “we lack clear objective standards to distinguish between sentences for different terms of years,” id., at 1001 , 111 | 4 | 21 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rummel v. Estelle
green
2 sentences2022Id., at 1001 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Solem v. Helm, supra, at 290, 103 S. Ct. 3001 ; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S., at 272 , 100 S. Ct. 1133 . 2022Id., at 1001 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Solem v. Helm, supra, at 290, 103 S. Ct. 3001 ; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S., at 272 , 100 S. Ct. 1133 . | 2 | 1988–2022 |
Ashley v. State
green
2 sentences2010Long also cites Ashley v. State, 538 So.2d 1181 (Miss.1989), for the proposition that the trial court was required to engage in a proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment. 2010Long also cites Ashley v. State, 538 So.2d 1181 (Miss.1989), for the proposition that the trial court was required to engage in a proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Pitts v. Miss. State Bar Ass'n
green
2 sentences2001Pitts v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 462 So.2d 340 (Miss.1985). 1999Attorney AAA relies on Pitts v. Mississippi Bar, 462 So.2d 340 (Miss. 1985), for the proposition that this Court has always applied a proportionality requirement to Bar discipline cases. | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Barnwell v. State
green
2 sentences1998In Barnwell v. State, 567 So.2d 215 (Miss.1990) we addressed the application of the proportionality test to sentences imposed by trial courts. 1997In Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1990) we addressed the application of the proportionality test to sentences imposed by trial courts. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2025This is not a situation where the trial court conducted a proportionality analysis under Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), and determined that life without parole would be grossly disproportionate to the crime Brownlee committed.6 This also was not a case 6 According to the factual basis announced by the State during the guilty plea hearing, Brownlee was living with William Brownlee, Sr., who was “an invalid and was confined to 14 invoking Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012),7 where Brownlee was under eighteen years of age at the time of the crime. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hutto v. Davis
green
2 sentences2022This is not an extraordinary nor exceedingly rare case as discussed in Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374 , 102 S. Ct. 703 , 70 L. 2022This is not an extraordinary nor exceedingly rare case as discussed in Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374 , 102 S. Ct. 703 , 70 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Long v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Womack v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Wiley v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Jordan v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Gray v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Presley v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.