Also known as: narrowly proportional · narrow tailoring
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional principle under the Eighth Amendment that prohibits noncapital sentences grossly disproportionate to the offense.
Natasha Nielsen received a 25-year sentence under a three-strikes statute after her third minor theft conviction. The court applied narrow proportionality review and upheld the term because the legislature's goal of incapacitating repeat offenders justified the enhanced penalty despite the modest value of the stolen goods.
Noah Nakamura was sentenced to life without parole after his third conviction for shoplifting tools worth under $500. The court conducted narrow proportionality review and found the sentence constitutional because the recidivist statute served legitimate deterrence objectives and the prior convictions demonstrated escalating criminality.
In 1994 California enacted its three strikes law providing an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for any defendant convicted of a felony who had previously been convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies. On March 12, 2000, Gary Albert Ewing entered the pro shop at the El Segundo Golf Course in Los Angeles County while on parole from a nine-year prison term. He left with three golf clubs priced at $399 each concealed in his pants leg. A shop employee alerted police, and officers apprehended Ewing in the parking lot. Ewing had a long criminal history. In 1984 at age 22 he pleaded guilty to theft and received six months suspended jail time, three years probation, and a fine. Between 1988 and 1993 he accumulated convictions for grand theft auto, petty theft with a prior, battery, burglary, drug paraphernalia possession, unlawful firearm possession, and trespass. In October and November 1993 Ewing committed three residential burglaries and one robbery at a Long Beach apartment complex over five weeks. A jury later convicted him of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary. He received a sentence of nine years and eight months before being paroled in 1999. A jury convicted Ewing of one count of felony grand theft for the golf-club theft. At sentencing the prosecution alleged and the trial court found four prior serious or violent felony convictions arising from the Long Beach crimes. At the sentencing hearing, Ewing asked the court to reduce the grand theft conviction to a misdemeanor or to dismiss some or all of the prior strike allegations. The trial court declined both requests and imposed the mandatory 25-years-to-life term under the three strikes law. The California Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished opinion rejecting Ewing's claim that the sentence was grossly disproportionate. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNathan Nguyen received a mandatory life sentence for possessing a large quantity of cocaine with no prior record. The court applied narrow proportionality review and upheld the punishment because the severity of the drug offense aligned with the state's interest in combating trafficking and the sentence was not grossly disproportionate.
Ronald Harmelin was convicted in Michigan state court of possessing 672 grams of cocaine. Michigan law imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for that quantity of the drug. Harmelin had no prior felony convictions. The Michigan Court of Appeals initially reversed the conviction because evidence supporting it had been obtained in violation of the Michigan Constitution. On petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals vacated its prior decision and affirmed the sentence. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The quantity of cocaine at issue had a potential yield of between 32,500 and 65,000 doses. The sentencing court imposed the mandatory term without considering any individualized circumstances of the offense or the offender. Harmelin challenged the sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, arguing both that it was grossly disproportionate to the crime and that the mandatory nature of the penalty was unconstitutional.
View caseNigel Nelson, a juvenile, received life without parole for armed robbery involving no homicide. The court performed narrow proportionality review and invalidated the sentence because the offender's youth and the nonhomicide nature of the crime rendered the punishment grossly disproportionate under Eighth Amendment standards.
Terrance Graham was sixteen years old when he committed armed burglary and attempted armed robbery in Florida. In return for his guilty plea to these charges, the Florida trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced him to probation rather than entering a formal conviction. Graham subsequently violated the terms of his probation by committing additional crimes. The trial court then adjudicated him guilty of the original charges, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the armed burglary. Because Florida has abolished its parole system, the sentence ensures that Graham will die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that he has matured or been rehabilitated. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on appeal. The case reached the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari to determine whether the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
View caseNolan Nunez challenged a 30-year sentence for a repeat drug offense under a recidivist enhancement. The court applied narrow proportionality review and sustained the term because the sentence reflected the state's interest in deterring habitual offenders and did not cross the threshold of gross disproportionality.
Nestor Navarro received a lengthy prison term after multiple burglary convictions. The court conducted narrow proportionality review and upheld the sentence because the cumulative criminal history justified the penalty as serving incapacitation goals without gross disproportionality.
Narrow proportionality review asks whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. Courts consider the gravity of the offense, the harshness of the penalty, and sentences imposed on other offenders for the same crime.
No. The principle permits enhanced sentences under recidivist statutes when they serve legitimate goals of deterrence and incapacitation and the resulting term is not grossly disproportionate to the offender's criminal history.
Courts applying narrow proportionality review give special weight to a juvenile's age and reduced culpability. Life without parole for a nonhomicide offense committed by a juvenile is typically invalid because it is grossly disproportionate.
…"presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Ibid. In order to fulfill the requirement of narrow tailoring, "the State is obligated to make a reasonable effort to limit the effect of its regulations to the period in the trimester during which its health interest will be furthered." Akron v.…