Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Davis

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 2003No. CR-01-0423-PRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McGREGOR, Vice Chief Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶73 I agree with much of the majority opinion. I agree that Davis received a very *392long sentence following his conviction of four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, based upon four instances of sexual intercourse with girls under fifteen years of age. Op. ¶ 36. I agree that the United States Supreme Court has now made clear, through its decision in Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, -, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1187, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), that in deciding whether a sentence is so grossly disproportionate as to violate the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Ewing v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Hutto v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API