Opinion ID: 1421674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the sentence appellant received violate the eighth amendment?

Text: After appellant's conviction for manslaughter, the jury also found that the crime was dangerous, that the appellant had three prior felony convictions, and that he was on probation from one of these felony convictions at the time of the murder. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604.01(A), appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Appellant contends that this sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. According to Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1984), the dispositive question is whether the appellant's sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed. Disproportionality analysis requires a tripartite inquiry comparing: (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. Id. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 3010, 77 L.Ed.2d at 649-50. Appellant brutally stabbed Francisco Castano. This was a grave offense requiring a severe penalty. At the time of this homicide, appellant was on probation from the felony of first degree burglary. Appellant also had been convicted of petty theft with a prior and grand theft from a person. Appellant's crime compared with other offenders sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604.01(A) is not disproportionate. Cf. State v. Noriega, 142 Ariz. 474, 690 P.2d 775 (1984); State v. McNair, 141 Ariz. 475, 687 P.2d 1230 (1984). Repeat offenders in other jurisdictions fare similarly. The sentence imposed on appellant was not disproportionate to that which other states would have imposed. Appellant's punishment was neither cruel nor unusual. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4035 and have found none. Judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed. HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and CAMERON, J., concur.