14 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oakley v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Considering and balancing these four factors together, this Court concludes that Bear Cloud has not carried his burden of showing that, according to contemporary national standards of decency, the punishment of life with the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders is grossly disproportionate to the offense as a categorical challenge. ii, As-Applied Constitutional Challenge [T78] While Bear Cloud spends considerably less time arguing that his life sentence is unconstitutional "as applied" to him, this contention warrants some attention and analysis: In considering a state-law constitutiona 2010In Solem v. Helm, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the following proportionality analysis, which the Wyoming Supreme Court has followed since Oakley v. State, 715 P.2d 1374, 1376-77 (Wyo.1986): In sum, a court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (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. | 7 | 8 |
Woods v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Woods v. State, 2017 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 401 P.3d 962, 969 (Wyo. 2017) (explaining that courts will not consider issues that were not thoroughly raised by the parties); see also Klomliam v. State, 2014 WY 1 , ¶ 17, 315 P.3d 665, 669 (Wyo. 2014) (limiting the court’s analysis to the Wyoming Constitution because the appellant did not assert a separate argument under the United States Constitution). 10 While Hicks was issued after the oral argument in this matter, the parties were given the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing in light of the new bifurcated test established in Hicks for Ar 2026See Woods v. State, 2017 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 401 P.3d 962, 969 (Wyo. 2017) (explaining that courts will not consider issues that were not thoroughly raised by the parties); see also Klomliam v. State, 2014 WY 1 , ¶ 17, 315 P.3d 665, 669 (Wyo. 2014) (limiting the court’s analysis to the Wyoming Constitution because the appellant did not assert a separate argument under the United States Constitution). 10 While Hicks was issued after the oral argument in this matter, the parties were given the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing in light of the new bifurcated test established in Hicks for Ar | 1 | 1 |
Joy Klomliam v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2026See Woods v. State, 2017 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 401 P.3d 962, 969 (Wyo. 2017) (explaining that courts will not consider issues that were not thoroughly raised by the parties); see also Klomliam v. State, 2014 WY 1 , ¶ 17, 315 P.3d 665, 669 (Wyo. 2014) (limiting the court’s analysis to the Wyoming Constitution because the appellant did not assert a separate argument under the United States Constitution). 10 While Hicks was issued after the oral argument in this matter, the parties were given the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing in light of the new bifurcated test established in Hicks for Ar 2026See Woods v. State, 2017 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 401 P.3d 962, 969 (Wyo. 2017) (explaining that courts will not consider issues that were not thoroughly raised by the parties); see also Klomliam v. State, 2014 WY 1 , ¶ 17, 315 P.3d 665, 669 (Wyo. 2014) (limiting the court’s analysis to the Wyoming Constitution because the appellant did not assert a separate argument under the United States Constitution). 10 While Hicks was issued after the oral argument in this matter, the parties were given the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing in light of the new bifurcated test established in Hicks for Ar | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2010See also Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 (the Eighth Amendment proportionality principle "forbids only extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime"). [d50] In this case, we do not need to engage in a proportionality analysis because the length of Appellant's sentence is not extreme or unusual when compared to the gravity of the offense. 2010See also Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2021 (the Eighth Amendment proportionality principle "forbids only extreme sentences that are `grossly disproportionate' to the crime"). [¶ 50] In this case, we do not need to engage in a proportionality analysis because the length of Appellant's sentence is not extreme or unusual when compared to the gravity of the offense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2017He relies on Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3011 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), which held that a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (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. 2017He relies on Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3011 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), which held that a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (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. | 10 | 1986–2017 |
Tucker v. State
green
2 sentences2011Just as in the recent case of Tucker v. State, 2010 WY 162, ¶ 50 , 245 P.3d 301 (Wyo.2010), this Court concluded that "we do not need to engage in a proportionality analysis because the length of Appellant's sentence is not extreme or unusual when compared to the gravity of the offense." This Court then analyzed the sentences under our "standard rubric for assessing the reasonableness of the sentence, which gives consideration to the crime, its cireumstances, and the character of the defendant." Id. 2011Just as in the recent case of Tucker v. State, 2010 WY 162, ¶ 50 , 245 P.3d 301 (Wyo.2010), this Court concluded that "we do not need to engage in a proportionality analysis because the length of Appellant's sentence is not extreme or unusual when compared to the gravity of the offense." This Court then analyzed the sentences under our "standard rubric for assessing the reasonableness of the sentence, which gives consideration to the crime, its cireumstances, and the character of the defendant." Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences1996Smith’s reliance upon Solem fails to account for the dialogue among the members of the Supreme Court of the United States in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). 1996Smith’s reliance upon Solem fails to account for the dialogue among the members of the Supreme Court of the United States in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pixley v. State
green
2 sentences1983The last death sentence imposed by a court of Wyoming and carried out was in 1965, Pixley v. State, Wyo., 406 P.2d 662 (1965). 1983The last death sentence imposed by a court of Wyoming and carried out was in 1965, Pixley v. State, Wyo., 406 P.2d 662 (1965). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Jurek v. Texas
green
2 sentences1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6-4-103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S. 1977, we must "* * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." In doing so we must "include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar c 1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6-4-103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S. 1977, we must "* * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." In doing so we must "include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar c | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bohack Corp. v. General Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 852
green
2 sentences1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6 — 4—103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S.1977, we must “ * * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” In doing so we must “include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar 1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6-4-103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S. 1977, we must "* * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." In doing so we must "include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar c | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass'n
green
2 sentences1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6 — 4—103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S.1977, we must “ * * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” In doing so we must “include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar 1983XVII Finally, as a part of the examination of the record in application of the proportionality test prescribed by Gregg, Proffitt and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 , reh. denied 429 U.S. 875 , 97 S.Ct. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 198 , 50 L.Ed.2d 158 (1976), under the provisions of § 6-4-103(d)(iii) and (e), W.S. 1977, we must "* * * determine if * * * [t]he sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." In doing so we must "include in its [our] decision a reference to those similar c | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.