Rea v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1DissentChapel, J.
11 I concur in the majority's decision affirming Rea's conviction. I believe Rea's sentence is disproportionate and would modify. I disagree with the majority's refusal to adopt a proportionality standard of review for excessive sentence claims. I have previously indicated I believe a proportionality standard is both fair and appropriate.1 I do not see why the majority relies on the People v. Milbourn2 explanation that appellate sentence review must respect and give purpose to the legislature's sentencing scheme. I agree that legislatures define punishments. I agree that our state legislature…
2Cases cited81 opinions
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- State v. LobatoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1992
- State v. RothSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.