Cited by

¶11 When reviewing a sentence under the Eighth Amendment, we first determine whether “there is a threshold showing of gross disproportionality by comparing ‘the gravity of the offense [and] the 3 STATE v. KLEINMAN Decision of the Court harshness of the penalty.’” ¶ 12 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28 (2003)).

¶59 The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” protects individuals from being subjected to excessive sanctions and ensures that punishment for a crime is “graduated and proportioned to the offense.” (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005)).

See id.; ¶ 3 (2006) (“[T]he possession of each image of child pornography is a separate offense.”).

¶19 To evaluate the constitutionality of a noncapital sentence, we first determine whether “there is a threshold showing of gross disproportionality by comparing the gravity of the offense [and] the harshness of the penalty.” ¶ 12 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“[O]nly in ‘exceedingly rare’ cases will a sentence to a term of years violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.” ¶ 17 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 22 (2003)).

He was properly sentenced under provisions of that statute applicable to defendants who were “tried as an adult.” we may not consider whether the cumulative sentences are grossly disproportionate.

See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003); ¶ 7 (2006).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment” and “has been applied to lengthy sentences of incarceration.” ¶ 10 (2006); U.S. Const. amend.

Sexually exploitive material “not only harms children in its production, but also ‘causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come.’” ¶ 18 (2006) (quoting Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111 (1990)); see also Improving the Response to Victims of Child Pornography, The National Center for Victims of Crime (Dec.

does not violate the Eighth Amendment in its general application[, it] may still, in its application to ‘the specific facts and circumstances’ of a defendant’s offense, result in an unconstitutionally disproportionate sentence.” ¶ 39 (2006) ( ¶ 31 (2003)).

The Legislature, however, enacted the DCAC enhancements “to deter and punish those who participate in the child pornography industry.” ¶ 51 (2006); –91 (1990) (“Protecting the children of Arizona and punishing severely those who prey on them certainly are two legislative goals.”).

In undertaking this analysis, the court “first determines if there is a threshold showing of gross disproportionality by comparing ‘the gravity of the offense [and] the harshness of the penalty.’” ¶ 12 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28 (2003)).

¶29 We “will not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry.” ¶ 27 (2006) ( ¶ 47 (2003)).

-83, ¶¶ 23, 28, 36, 49, 51 (2006) (upholding an aggregate sentence of 200 years arising from the imposition of 20 consecutive terms of 10 years' imprisonment for sexual exploitation of a minor convictions).

¶16 provides the relevant analysis for such questions.

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 108 (1990); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 762–63 (1982); ¶ 19 n.2 (2006); Emond, 163 Ariz. at 139–40.

See, 503-04, ¶¶ 1, 13 (2014) (double jeopardy); -75, 478, 483, ¶¶ 3, 6, 22, 25, 51 (2006) (cruel and unusual punishment); (separation of powers); -80, ¶¶ 1-19 (App. 2003) (vagueness).

¶¶ 2- 3, 483, ¶ 51 (2006).

¶ 3 (2006) (“Under this statutory scheme, the possession of each image of child pornography is a separate offense.”); ¶¶ 6–7 (App. 2012) (“[T]he legislature intended the unit of prosecution to be each individual ‘depiction.’”).

¶ 24 (alteration in Kasic ) (quoting State v. Berger , , ¶ 28, ).

¶18 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, barring the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments,” has been applied to lengthy prison sentences, but “noncapital sentences are subject only to a narrow proportionality principle that prohibits sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” 477, ¶¶ 8- 10, 17 (2006) (internal quotations omitted).