Narrative Opinion Summary
A mandatory seventy-month sentence for intentionally shooting someone in the back does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court reiterates that only extreme sentences which are grossly disproportionate to the crime are forbidden. It references case law, specifically Andrade v. Attorney General and Harmelin v. Michigan, to support the assertion that a sentence is not rendered cruel or unusual merely because it is mandatory. The court affirms the ruling, noting that this decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Eighth Amendment and Cruel or Unusual Punishmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a mandatory seventy-month sentence for intentionally shooting someone in the back is not considered cruel or unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
Reasoning: A mandatory seventy-month sentence for intentionally shooting someone in the back does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Mandatory Sentences and Eighth Amendmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced case law to support the notion that a sentence is not rendered cruel or unusual merely because it is mandatory.
Reasoning: It references case law, specifically Andrade v. Attorney General and Harmelin v. Michigan, to support the assertion that a sentence is not rendered cruel or unusual merely because it is mandatory.
Non-Publication and Citation of Judicial Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that its decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, with specific reference to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The court affirms the ruling, noting that this decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Proportionality of Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that only extreme sentences grossly disproportionate to the crime are forbidden, referencing relevant case law to support this principle.
Reasoning: The court reiterates that only extreme sentences which are grossly disproportionate to the crime are forbidden.