Opinion ID: 3164766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abbreviated Proportionality Review

Text: Â¶24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We conduct an abbreviated proportionality review to determine whether Rutterâs ninety-six-year sentence for the grave or serious triggering offense of manufacturing methamphetamine is overly harsh and thus gives rise to an inference of gross disproportionality. As our precedent directs, we conduct the proportionality review by scrutinizing the harshness of Rutterâs sentence in relation to the fact that his triggering offense is grave or serious. Id.; Solem, 463 U.S. at 296 n.21 (â[Courts] must focus on the principal felonyâthe felony that triggers the [enhanced] sentence . . . .â). Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar question in Harmelin. 501 U.S. at 961 (majority opinion). There, the Supreme Court upheld Harmelinâs sentence of life imprisonment for possessing 672 grams of cocaine. Id. Here, we find that Rutterâs ninety-six-year sentence for manufacturing a schedule II controlled substance is not too harsh in light of the fact that the triggering offense is grave or serious. Therefore,Â Rutterâs sentence is not grossly disproportionate. See Close, 48 P.3d at 536 (noting the âvery high likelihood that a sentence will be upheld as constitutionally proportionateâ when the crime is grave or serious).