proportionality analysis in Louisiana

2017Defendant devotes most of his excessive sentence argument to the proportionality doctrine and cites to, in particular, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2017Defendant devotes most of his excessive sentence argument to the proportionality doctrine and cites to, in particular, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2017Defendant devotes most of his excessive sentence argument to the proportionality doctrine and cites to, in particular, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2017Defendant devotes most of his excessive sentence argument to the proportionality doctrine and cites to, in particular, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

1996Defendant contends that "the distinctions made by the legislature are not rationally based but based upon emotion and political posturing before an electorate made fearful to the point of hysteria about child molesters by media hype." In State v. Foley, 456 So.2d 979 (La.1984) the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence for aggravated rape, and it conducted a proportionality analysis under Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). [2] The court found that the mandatory life sentence for aggravated rape is a valid exerci

1985In State v. Foley, 456 So.2d 979 (La.1984), the Louisiana Supreme Court applied a proportionality analysis to Foley's crime and sentence, and held that Louisiana had not singled out aggravated rape for disproportionate punishment.

2013State v. Guzman, 99-1528, 99-1753 (La.05/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158 .

2013State v. Humphrey, supra. A court’s proportionality analysis should be guided by the gravity of the offense and culpability of the offender.

1997State v. Wimberly, 618 So.2d 908, 913 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1229 (La.1993) (citation omitted).

1996In holding that the mandatory sentence was constitutional, the court stated: Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), held that a death sentence for rape is excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment, but did not discount the seriousness of the crime.

1996In holding that the mandatory sentence was constitutional, the court stated: Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), held that a death sentence for rape is excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment, but did not discount the seriousness of the crime.

1983State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).

1983PROPORTIONALITY OF SENTENCE The purpose of the proportionality inquiry is to determine "whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." Supreme Court Rule 28, § 1(c); State v. Monroe, supra. An inference of arbitrariness arises when a jury's recommendation is inconsistent with sentences imposed in similar cases from the same jurisdiction.

1983State v. Sonnier, 380 So.2d 1 (La.1979).

1983In answering affirmatively the question of "whether the Eighth Amendment proscribes a life sentence without possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony," the Court held "that a criminal sentence must be proportionate to the crime for which the defendant was convicted." The Court went on to explain 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

1983In answering affirmatively the question of "whether the Eighth Amendment proscribes a life sentence without possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony," the Court held "that a criminal sentence must be proportionate to the crime for which the defendant was convicted." The Court went on to explain 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