NCJ Number
80404
Journal
Loyola Law Review Volume: 26 Dated: (Summer 1980) Pages: 698-705
Date Published
1980
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S.263 (1980), a rendering bearing upon the constitutionality of Texas' recidivist statute, is presented and critiqued.
Abstract
The petitioner Rummel, already convicted and sentenced in Texas State courts for two separate felonies, was convicted of a third and sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to Texas' recidivist statute. Rummel's direct appeal and subsequent collateral attacks on his imprisonment failed in the Texas appellate courts. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal district court, he claimed that because his life sentence was so disproportionate to the crimes he had committed, it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th and 14th amendments. The district court upheld the validity of the recidivist statute, but was reversed by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At a rehearing, the court of appeals reinstated the district court's holding. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and held that the mandatory life sentence imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In its decision, the Court declared its reluctance to limit legislative prerogative in such matters as the determination of sentences. It further pointed out the lack of success of most challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences, declaring death penalty cases to be in a category different from prison sentence lengths. The Court rejected the contention that determinations of proportionality could be based upon the pettiness of the offenses. The Court acted properly, recognizing the subjective judgment associated with setting sanctions for various offenses or patterns of criminality. These subjective policy determinations should properly be left to the States. Forty-six footnotes are listed.