Opinion ID: 1588912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Sumrell's Life Sentence Was Disproportionate In Light of His Crimes.

Text: ¶ 17. [T]he general rule in Mississippi is that a sentence that does not exceed the maximum term allowed by the statute, cannot be disturbed on appeal. Edwards v. State, 800 So.2d 454, 468 (Miss.2001) (citing Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302 (Miss.1992)). This Court will review a sentence that allegedly imposed a penalty that is disproportionate to the crime. Id. ¶ 18. In Edwards, this Court discussed the proportionality analysis as laid out by the United States Supreme Court: The United States Supreme Court set forth a three-prong test for an Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis in Solem as follows: (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentence imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. This Court noted, however, that Solem was overruled in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965-66, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2686-87, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) to the extent that it found a guarantee of proportionality in the Eighth Amendment. In light of Harmelin, it appears that Solem is to apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of `gross disproportionality.' Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d at 538 (citations omitted). The appellate courts will not apply the three-prong disproportionality test when there is a lack of this initial showing. Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (Miss.1999); Williams v. State, 784 So.2d 230, 236 (Miss.Ct. App.2000). 800 So.2d at 469. Applying our reasoning in Edwards to the case at bar, we find no merit to the issues.