Solem v. Helm

Supreme Court of United States
463 U.S. 277 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments forbids not only barbaric punishments but also sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. This proportionality principle applies to felony prison sentences, including life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Facts:

By 1975, Jerry Helm had accumulated six prior nonviolent felony convictions in South Dakota: three for third-degree burglary, one for obtaining money under false pretenses, one for grand larceny, and one for third-offense driving while intoxicated.
The record indicated that alcohol was a contributing factor in each of Helm's prior offenses.
In 1979, Helm was charged with uttering a 'no account' check for $100.
Helm explained he had been drinking on the day he wrote the check and did not fully remember the incident.
Helm's prior felonies were all relatively minor and were not crimes against a person.

Procedural Posture:

Jerry Helm pleaded guilty in the South Dakota Circuit Court, which sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole under the state's recidivist statute.
Helm appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which affirmed the sentence.
Helm then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
The District Court denied the writ, concluding the sentence was constitutional under the precedent set by Rummel v. Estelle.
Helm, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where the State of South Dakota was the appellee.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, finding the sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate.
The State of South Dakota, through Warden Solem, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments forbid a state from sentencing a defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

Yes. A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is significantly disproportionate to Helm's cumulative nonviolent offenses and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. The constitutional principle of proportionality applies to all felony prison sentences, requiring that the punishment fit the crime. To determine if a sentence is grossly disproportionate, courts must apply an objective, three-factor analysis: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Applying these factors, the Court found that Helm's crime was a minor, passive felony, while his sentence was the second most severe possible in the state. His punishment was more severe than that imposed for far more serious crimes in South Dakota, and far more severe than what he would have received in 48 other states. The mere possibility of executive commutation is not a substitute for a structured parole system and does not save an otherwise unconstitutional sentence, distinguishing this case from Rummel v. Estelle.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger

No. The Eighth Amendment does not authorize courts to conduct a proportionality review for felony prison sentences, as the length of sentences is a matter of legislative prerogative. The majority disregards the recent precedent of Rummel v. Estelle, which upheld a life sentence for a third nonviolent felony. Proportionality analysis should be reserved for unique situations like the death penalty or bizarre forms of punishment. The three-part test created by the majority is subjective and unworkable, inviting federal courts to substitute their own moral judgments for those of state legislatures. The dissent also rejected the characterization of Helm's prior felonies, such as burglary and drunk driving, as merely 'nonviolent' or 'minor,' arguing they posed a significant risk of harm to society. Finally, the distinction between a life sentence with parole (as in Rummel) and one with the possibility of commutation is insubstantial for a habitual offender whom the state has deemed incorrigible.

Analysis:

This case is significant for extending the Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle beyond the death penalty to sentences of imprisonment. It established a concrete, three-part test for lower courts to use when assessing whether a particular sentence is 'grossly disproportionate' to the offense. The decision effectively narrowed the holding of Rummel v. Estelle by creating a crucial distinction between life sentences with a meaningful opportunity for parole and those without, thereby providing a constitutional basis to challenge severe recidivist statutes that eliminate parole eligibility.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Solem v. Helm (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature