Edwards v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edwards v. State

885 So. 2d 1039, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17056, 2004 WL 2534295

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 10, 2004·No. No. 4D03-1617·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Appellant appeals a sentence of fifteen years for escape, claiming that it is grossly disproportionate to the crime. A constitutional claim that a punishment is cruel and unusual requires a proportionality analysis, which appellant has not argued. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525-26 (Fla.1993). He simply points to the specific facts, which show that his “escape” constituted only the attempt to bolt out of the courtroom after he received a stiffer sentence than he expected for another crime. However, a proportionality analysis focuses on the crime charged and the legislatively imposed punishment for the crime, not the specific facts of a particular case. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001. We cannot say that a sentence of fifteen years for the crime of escape violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause, and appellant has given us no argument to suggest otherwise.

SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARNER, J.

Appellant appeals a sentence of fifteen years for escape, claiming that it is grossly disproportionate to the crime. A constitutional claim that a punishment is cruel and unusual requires a proportionality analysis, which appellant has not argued. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525-26 (Fla.1993). He simply points to the specific facts, which show that his “escape” constituted only the attempt to bolt out of the courtroom after he received a stiffer sentence than he expected for another crime. However, a proportionality analysis focuses on the crime charged and the legislatively imposed punishment for the crime, not the specific facts of a particular case. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001. We cannot say that a sentence of fifteen years for the crime of escape violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause, and appellant has given us no argument to suggest otherwise.

SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

Edwards v. State, 885 So. 2d 1039, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17056, 2004 WL 2534295 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

885 So. 2d 1039 (Edwards v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related