Opinion ID: 477872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harshness of the penalty.

Text: 11 McLester submits that an evaluation of the offense he committed when compared to his life sentence without parole, unquestionably establishes an unacceptable harshness that violates his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. McLester particularly declares this to be true in this instance where the facts of the crime show mitigating factors such as intoxication, absence of physical harm, and a lack of intent. McLester concedes that his offense appears at first blush to be grave; however, he emphasizes that he acted in jest although the alleged victim apparently perceived his acts as being serious. 12 On this issue, Seritt v. State of Alabama, 731 F.2d 728 (11th Cir.1984), controls. The court in Seritt, at 732, stated that robbery is not viewed by society as one of the less serious offenses. It is a serious offense! Whether McLester acted in jest has been determined against him--the jury convicted. Seritt forecloses relief for McLester under the first Solem factor. 13