Opinion ID: 1702179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the sentence received by appellant violated the eighth amendment to the constitution of the united states?

Text: Fleming argues that his sentence of twenty years imprisonment for aggravated assault is disproportionate to the crime and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fleming was sentenced under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81, the habitual offender statute, to the twenty-year maximum term for aggravated assault as set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2). This Court has previously ruled that the twenty-year maximum set by § 97-3-7(2) does not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment per se. See Adams v. State, 410 So.2d 1332, 1333-34 (Miss. 1982). Further, the general rule in this state is that a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute. See Corley v. State, 536 So.2d 1314, 1319 (Miss. 1988); Reed v. State, 536 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss. 1988). This Court will review a sentence, however, where it is alleged that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the crime charged. See Ashley v. State, 538 So.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Miss. 1989); Davis v. State, 510 So.2d 794, 797 (Miss. 1987); Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 618 (Miss. 1985). Fleming alleges such here. The United States Supreme Court set out three factors for courts to consider when conducting a proportionality analysis. The criteria include: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3011, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). We have occasionally applied the Solem test when reviewing the imposition of recidivist sentences. See, e.g., Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss. 1988); Davis, 510 So.2d at 797; Presley, 474 So.2d at 618. We have reduced or reversed such sentences, however, only where the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime. See Davis, 510 So.2d at 797; see also Presley, 474 So.2d at 621 (sentence reversed on proportionality grounds only where it is shockingly excessive) (Robertson, J., specially concurring). Fleming's sentence passes the Solem test. First, the twenty-year term does not appear on its face to be unduly harsh in comparison to the gravity of the offense. Fleming was charged and convicted of severely bludgeoning Keith Nichols with an iron pipe. This is not a case involving, for example, forty years without parole for what in essence is a petty criminal's stealing of a steak, ( Presley, 474 So.2d at 621 (Robertson, J., specially concurring)), or one in which the defendant is subject to a sentence of fifteen years for uttering a forged $250 check ( Clowers, 522 So.2d at 763). Secondly, the statutory maximum penalty for aggravated assault is not grossly out of line with the maximum terms allowed for the commission of other violent crimes in Mississippi. [8] Thirdly, the maximum penalties imposed for aggravated assault in neighboring states are not profoundly different from our own. [9] Clearly, Fleming's sentence is not grossly disproportionate. The assignment of error must fail.