State v. Davis

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jeffrey Davis, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002617

Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-193
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) ("The Eighth
Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence.
Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the
crime." (Kennedy, J., concurring)); State v. Harrison, 402 S.C. 288, 299-300, 741
S.E.2d 727, 733 (2013) ("[I]n analyzing proportionality under the Eight
Amendment outside the capital context, South Carolina courts shall first determine
whether a comparison between the sentence and the crime committed gives rise to
an inference of gross disproportionality. If no such inference is present, the
analysis ends."); State v. Williams, 380 S.C. 336, 347, 669 S.E.2d 640, 646 (Ct.
App. 2008) ("It is not the burden of the state to establish a national consensus
approving what their citizens have voted to do; rather, it is the heavy burden of the
defendant to establish a national consensus against it."); id. at 347-48, 669 S.E.2d
at 646 ("Our courts have . . . determined stiff penalties for drug crimes do not
violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."); id. at
348, 669 S.E.2d at 647 ("[T]he United States Supreme Court has also held a state is
justified in punishing a recidivist more severely than it does a first offender.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, LOCKEMY, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.