Solem test in Mississippi

2010However, the Supreme Court overruled Solem in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), insofar as the Solem factors “apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of ‘gross disproportionality.’ ” Hoops, 681 So.2d at 538 (citation omitted). ¶ 16.

2010However, the Supreme Court overruled Solem in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), insofar as the Solem factors “apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of ‘gross disproportionality.’ ” Hoops, 681 So.2d at 538 (citation omitted). ¶ 16.

1995The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[i]n the complete absence of facts showing that [the appellant’s] sentence exceeds others imposed for the same crime in either the same or other jurisdictions, it is impossible for this Court to hold the second and third prongs of the Solem test favor reversal of [the Appellant’s] sentence." Id. (quoting Wallace v. State, 607 So. 2d 1184, 1189 (Miss. 1992)).

1995The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[i]n the complete absence of facts showing that [the appellant’s] sentence exceeds others imposed for the same crime in either the same or other jurisdictions, it is impossible for this Court to hold the second and third prongs of the Solem test favor reversal of [the Appellant’s] sentence." Id. (quoting Wallace v. State, 607 So. 2d 1184, 1189 (Miss. 1992)).

2000Bell cites Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 763-65 (Miss.1988), to support his argument for the first prong of the Solem test regarding disproportionality.

2000Bell cites Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 763-65 (Miss.1988), to support his argument for the first prong of the Solem test regarding disproportionality.

2007The Solem analysis lists three criteria to examine: “(1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentence imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). ¶ 8.

2007The Solem analysis lists three criteria to examine: “(1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentence imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). ¶ 8.

1999The Mississippi Supreme Court discussed the Solem test in Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116 (Miss.1993), a case similar to the one at bar.

1999The Mississippi Supreme Court discussed the Solem test in Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116 (Miss.1993), a case similar to the one at bar.

2022Long v. State, 33 So. 3d 1122, 1132 (Miss. 2010) (claim procedurally barred because the defendant failed to address any of the Solem factors); Johnson v. State, 29 So. 3d 738, 744 (Miss. 2009) (defendant “failed to present the trial court or this Court with evidence as to each Solem factor, and as such, this claim is barred from further review” (citing Willis v. State, 911 So. 2d 947, 951 (Miss. 2005))); Willis, 911 So. 2d at 951 (Miss. 2005) (claim dismissed for failure to address the third Solem factor). ¶38.

2022Long v. State, 33 So. 3d 1122, 1132 (Miss. 2010) (claim procedurally barred because the defendant failed to address any of the Solem factors); Johnson v. State, 29 So. 3d 738, 744 (Miss. 2009) (defendant “failed to present the trial court or this Court with evidence as to each Solem factor, and as such, this claim is barred from further review” (citing Willis v. State, 911 So. 2d 947, 951 (Miss. 2005))); Willis, 911 So. 2d at 951 (Miss. 2005) (claim dismissed for failure to address the third Solem factor). ¶38.

2011Cummings v. State, 29 So.3d 859, 861 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). ¶ 27.

2011Cummings v. State, 29 So.3d 859, 861 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). ¶ 27.

2001See Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Miss.1992); Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 961 (Miss.1988); Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss.1988); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 618-19 (Miss.1985). ¶ 26.

2001See Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Miss.1992); Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 961 (Miss.1988); Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss.1988); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 618-19 (Miss.1985). ¶ 26.

2007In Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996) the Mississippi Supreme Court considered whether a sentence was proportional pursuant to the three-pronged analysis in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). [6] In doing so, the court acknowledged that Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) clearly establishes that the Solem analysis "is to apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of `gross disproportionality.'" Hoops, 681 So.2d at 538 (quoting Smallwood

2007In Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 538 (Miss.1996) the Mississippi Supreme Court considered whether a sentence was proportional pursuant to the three-pronged analysis in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). [6] In doing so, the court acknowledged that Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) clearly establishes that the Solem analysis "is to apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of `gross disproportionality.'" Hoops, 681 So.2d at 538 (quoting Smallwood

2001See Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Miss.1992); Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 961 (Miss.1988); Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss.1988); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 618-19 (Miss.1985). ¶ 26.

2001See Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Miss.1992); Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992) Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 961 (Miss.1988); Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss.1988); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 618-19 (Miss.1985). ¶ 26.

2025While this Court recognizes the Solem test, it has also held that “[it] is the defendant’s burden to present evidence as to ‘each Solem factor in order for the court to determine whether the sentence is disproportionate.’” Rainey, 334 So. 3d at 1134 (quoting Johnson v. State, 29 So. 3d 738, 744 (Miss. 2009)).

2025Further, “failure to address one of the Solem factors 22 procedurally bars the claim.” Id. (citing Long v. State, 33 So. 3d 1122, 1132 (Miss. 2010)).

2025Further, “failure to address one of the Solem factors 22 procedurally bars the claim.” Id. (citing Long v. State, 33 So. 3d 1122, 1132 (Miss. 2010)).

2025Further, “failure to address one of the Solem factors 22 procedurally bars the claim.” Id. (citing Long v. State, 33 So. 3d 1122, 1132 (Miss. 2010)).

2012E.g., Wells v. State, 57 So.3d 40, 51-52 (¶¶ 44-47) (Miss.Ct.App.2011); Houser v. State, 29 So.3d 813, 823-25 (¶¶ 25-32) (Miss.Ct.App.2009); Hudderson v. State, 941 So.2d 221, 224 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006). ¶ 23.

2011However, “[t]he Solem analysis is applied only in rare cases where ‘a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.’ ” Hudderson v. State, 941 So.2d 221, 224 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003)).

2009“Absent this initial showing, our appellate courts will not employ the three-prong Solem analysis.” Id. (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 14.

2009“Absent this initial showing, our appellate courts will not employ the three-prong Solem analysis.” Id. (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 14.

2001See White, 742 So.2d at 1135 ; Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 122-23 (Miss.1993); Wallace, 607 So.2d at 1188 . ¶ 32.

2001See White, 742 So.2d at 1135 ; Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 122-23 (Miss.1993); Wallace, 607 So.2d at 1188 . ¶ 32.

2026See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 (1991) (holding that the Solem test should only apply when a comparison of the crime to the sentence leads to an inference of gross disproportionality); Skinner, 354 So. 3d at 337 (¶22) (stating the two other 15 As we stated in Beckham v. Beckham, 296 So. 3d 120 , 124 n.4 (Miss.

2026See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 (1991) (holding that the Solem test should only apply when a comparison of the crime to the sentence leads to an inference of gross disproportionality); Skinner, 354 So. 3d at 337 (¶22) (stating the two other 15 As we stated in Beckham v. Beckham, 296 So. 3d 120 , 124 n.4 (Miss.

2011However, “[t]he Solem analysis is applied only in rare cases where ‘a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.’ ” Hudderson v. State, 941 So.2d 221, 224 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003)).

2011However, “[t]he Solem analysis is applied only in rare cases where ‘a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.’ ” Hudderson v. State, 941 So.2d 221, 224 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003)).

2001Id. at 797. ¶ 27.

2001Id. at 797. ¶ 27.

2009“Absent this initial showing, our appellate courts will not employ the three-prong Solem analysis.” Id. (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 14.

2009“Absent this initial showing, our appellate courts will not employ the three-prong Solem analysis.” Id. (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 14.

2007The Solem test gives three objective criteria to weigh, namely "(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." Towner v. State, 837 So.2d 221, 227 (¶ 21) (Miss.

2007The Solem test gives three objective criteria to weigh, namely "(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." Towner v. State, 837 So.2d 221, 227 (¶ 21) (Miss.

2026However, the Solem factors are only applied “when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of ‘gross disproportionality.’” Id.; see also Russell v. State, 346 So. 3d 435 , 439 (¶17) (Miss. 2022) (finding “only in the exceedingly rare case in which this threshold comparison leads to an inference of gross disproportionality should the court then compare the defendant’s sentence with the sentences received by other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions”); Cook v. State, 106 So. 3d

2026However, the Solem factors are only applied “when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of ‘gross disproportionality.’” Id.; see also Russell v. State, 346 So. 3d 435 , 439 (¶17) (Miss. 2022) (finding “only in the exceedingly rare case in which this threshold comparison leads to an inference of gross disproportionality should the court then compare the defendant’s sentence with the sentences received by other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions”); Cook v. State, 106 So. 3d

2021Ct. App.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)), cert. denied, 302 So. 3d 647 (Miss. 2020). “[He] must also show that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Hills v. State, 101 So. 3d 691, 693 (¶9) (Miss.

2021Ct. App.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)), cert. denied, 302 So. 3d 647 (Miss. 2020). “[He] must also show that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Hills v. State, 101 So. 3d 691, 693 (¶9) (Miss.

2021Ct. App.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)), cert. denied, 302 So. 3d 647 (Miss. 2020). “[He] must also show that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Hills v. State, 101 So. 3d 691, 693 (¶9) (Miss.

2021Ct. App.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)), cert. denied, 302 So. 3d 647 (Miss. 2020). “[He] must also show that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Hills v. State, 101 So. 3d 691, 693 (¶9) (Miss.

2020Further, “[s]entencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Carson v. State, 161 So. 3d 153, 156 (¶7) (Miss.

2020Further, “[s]entencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Carson v. State, 161 So. 3d 153, 156 (¶7) (Miss.

2013In Hawkins v. State, 11 So.3d 123, 129 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2008), this Court found that a Solem analysis was not required in affirming a life sentence without parole pursuant to section 99-19-83 for attempted burglary of an automobile.

2013In Hawkins v. State, 11 So.3d 123, 129 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2008), this Court found that a Solem analysis was not required in affirming a life sentence without parole pursuant to section 99-19-83 for attempted burglary of an automobile.