## Facts

- Jerry Helm was convicted in South Dakota state court of uttering a “no account” check for $100.
- The ordinary maximum penalty for the offense was five years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
- Helm had six prior felony convictions: three third-degree burglaries, obtaining money under false pretenses, grand larceny, and a third-offense driving while intoxicated.
- South Dakota’s recidivist statute required enhancement of the principal felony to a Class 1 felony based on the prior convictions.
- A Class 1 felony carried a maximum of life imprisonment and a $25,000 fine, with no parole; only executive clemency was available.
- Helm pleaded guilty and received life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
- Helm sought commutation from the Governor, which was denied.
- Helm pursued federal habeas relief alleging cruel and unusual punishment; the district court denied relief and the Eighth Circuit reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a seventh nonviolent felony under a recidivist statute.
2. Whether proportionality review applies to noncapital prison sentences, and if so, what objective criteria govern that review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding Helm’s sentence unconstitutional.
- The Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids not only barbaric punishments but also sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.
- The Court rejected the argument that proportionality analysis is limited to death or other extreme penalties and does not apply to felony imprisonment.
- Applying an objective proportionality inquiry, the Court concluded life without parole for Helm’s triggering offense and prior nonviolent record was grossly disproportionate.
- The Court relied on: (1) the mismatch between the minor, nonviolent conduct and the State’s most severe available sanction; (2) comparisons showing more serious offenders in South Dakota could receive less severe punishment or parole eligibility; and (3) comparisons showing few jurisdictions imposed life without parole for similar nonviolent recidivism.

## Legal Principles

- The Eighth Amendment includes a proportionality requirement: a criminal sentence must be proportionate to the offense, and grossly disproportionate sentences are unconstitutional.
- Proportionality review applies to noncapital prison sentences; no punishment is per se constitutional simply because it is a term of imprisonment.
- Objective criteria guide proportionality analysis in noncapital cases:
  - gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty;
  - sentences imposed for other crimes in the same jurisdiction;
  - sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions.
- Federal courts may grant relief in exceptional cases where objective indicators show gross disproportionality, while still giving substantial deference to legislative sentencing choices.

## Conclusion

The Court held that life imprisonment without parole for Helm’s seventh, nonviolent felony violated the Eighth Amendment because it was grossly disproportionate, and it articulated a structured, objective framework for proportionality review of noncapital sentences.


Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)