State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Justice White's dissent in Harmelin is also noteworthy for its endorsement of the<br />
proportionality methodology laid out in Solem, even though Justice White joined Chief<br />
Justice Burger's dissenting opinion in Solem rejecting that approach. In his dissent in<br />
Harmelin, Justice White observed: "[T]he Solem analysis has worked well in practice."<br />
501 U.S. at 1015.<br />
4. Ewing and Lockyer<br />
The United <strong>State</strong>s Supreme Court returned to the constitutionality of state<br />
recidivist statutes in Ewing, 538 U.S. 11, and Lockyer, 538 U.S. 63, companion cases<br />
challenging California's three-strikes law. A fractured majority in Ewing upheld a<br />
sentence of 25-years-to-life in prison for a defendant convicted of stealing three golf<br />
clubs worth just under $1,200—a coda to a career in crime including a felony theft,<br />
several burglaries, a robbery, and a host of misdemeanors. Five justices held the sentence<br />
did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Justice Scalia reiterated his position from<br />
Harmelin that the Eighth Amendment permits no proportionality review of terms of<br />
imprisonment and any effort to engage in such review becomes an impermissible judicial<br />
foray into "evaluating policy." Ewing, 538 U.S. at 31-32 (Scalia, J., concurring in<br />
judgment). In an aside, he observed, however, that the plurality's reasoning "does not<br />
convincingly establish that 25-years-to-life is a 'proportionate' punishment for stealing<br />
three golf clubs." 538 U.S. at 31. Justice Thomas, who came on the Court after Harmelin<br />
had been decided, concluded "the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality<br />
principle" and, therefore, joined in the judgment affirming the sentence. 538 U.S. at 32<br />
(Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). He has essentially aligned with Justice Scalia in<br />
rejecting proportionality as a legitimate method of analysis in these cases.<br />
In a plurality opinion, Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and<br />
Justice Kennedy, applied the "narrow proportionality" analysis Justice Kennedy used in<br />
25