Opinion ID: 1826799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the circuit court's sentence of twenty years on count one, thirty years on count two, and thirty years on count three to be served consecutive to each other is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eight amendment to the united states constitution.

Text: Herring concedes that this Court has held that thirty years, the maximum penalty for a sale of a controlled substance under Section 41-29-139 of Miss. Code Ann. is not cruel and unusual punishment, but asserts that the consecutive aspect of this sentence makes it unconstitutional. Herring is correct that this Court has found that thirty years for selling a controlled substance is not cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280 (Miss. 1992); and Medley v. State, 600 So.2d 957 (Miss. 1992). We have never found a maximum penalty in a drug case  even if the sentences were to run consecutively  to be cruel and unusual punishment. This Court has held that: [W]hen a trial judge imposes a sentence within the prescribed limits of a statute, it will generally be upheld and not regarded as cruel and unusual. Barnwell v. State, 567 So.2d 215, 222 (Miss. 1990); Whitley v. State, 511 So.2d 929, 932 (Miss. 1987). Extended proportionality analysis is not required by the Eighth Amendment for a sentence unless it's a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole or a sentence which is manifestly disproportionate to the crime committed. Barnwell, 567 So.2d at 221. Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1107 (Miss. 1992). The sentence imposed upon Herring is not disproportionate to the crime committed. During the sentencing hearing, the State recommended the maximum sentence on each count of the indictment and that the sentences should run consecutively. The State cited Herring's extensive juvenile record that began when Herring was ten years old and Herring's complete unwillingness to go to trial and cooperate with his attorneys. Herring also testified and prayed that the court go light on him and give him a second chance. The trial judge in sentencing Herring recited his thoroughness and reasons for the sentences he imposed on Herring. The judge's colloquy spans ten pages in the trial record. We have said that thirty years is not cruel and unusual punishment for drug charges and, in light of the defendant's juvenile record, the judge did not err in imposing the sentences consecutively. Thus, this assignment of error is without merit.