Edwards v. State

¶1Appellant 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.