Billy Charles Burt, Petitioner-appellant, v. Steve W. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi Statepenitentiary, Respondent-appellee, 933 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1991)

Billy Charles Burt is a Mississippi inmate currently serving time for uttering a $35 forged check, a violation of Miss.Code.Ann. Sec. 97-21-59.¹  Ordinarily, this offense would have resulted in a sentence ranging from less than one to no more than fifteen years imprisonment, complete with possibility of parole. Miss.Code.Ann. Sec. 97-21-33.²  However, owing to two previous burglary convictions, Burt was sentenced under Mississippi's habitual offender statute, Miss.Code.Ann. Sec. 99-19-81,³  which requires that recidivists receive the maximum sentence possible (here, fifteen years) and that they be denied any prospect of parole or probation. Having exhausted his state remedies, Burt filed an unsuccessful habeas petition with the district court. He now appeals, arguing inter alia that his fifteen year sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate. Although not unsympathetic with Burt, we find his punishment in accord with constitutional requirements and, accordingly, affirm the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition.I

As the underlying facts are of little significance to Burt's Eighth Amendment claim, we recount them only briefly. On August 14, 1984, Burt went to a local grocery store and presented a clerk with a $35 counter check. At the time Burt was living with his girlfriend and her elderly father, Clinton Clay; the check was drawn on Clay's account and bore a representation of Clay's signature. After Burt told the clerk that Mr. Clay had given him the check and had asked him to purchase some groceries, the clerk accepted the check. Later, however, when the bank refused to honor the check because the signature thereon did not match the signature that the bank had on file for Clay, Burt was arrested, convicted, and sentenced.⁴ 

II

As suggested above, the only issue presented in this case that requires discussion is Burt's claim that his sentence contravenes the Eighth Amendment proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.⁵  Two Supreme Court holdings guide this inquiry. In Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1980), a Texas inmate--Rummel--unsuccessfully challenged as excessive a life sentence he had received under Texas's recidivist statute. In 1964 and 1969, respectively, Rummel had been convicted of using a credit card fraudulently (to obtain $80 worth of goods) and of passing a forged check ($28.36); the 1973 conviction that triggered his life sentence was for theft by false pretenses ($120.75). Only three years later, however, the Court in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983) struck down as violative of the Eighth Amendment a life imprisonment term meted out to a defendant sentenced under South Dakota's recidivist statute. Previously, Helm had been convicted of six felonies (thrice of third-degree burglary; once each of obtaining money under false pretenses, grand larceny, and third-offense driving while intoxicated); for him, the triggering crime was uttering a forged check ($100).

Significantly and perhaps surprisingly, Rummel survived Solem and remains good law. Solem, 103 S. Ct. at 3015-3016 (Rummel is controlling in "a similar factual situation"). In fact, we have construed Solem to hold that "Rummel still provides the rule in cases with fact situations not clearly distinguishable from that in Rummel itself." Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171, 180 (5th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Thus, the initial question Burt's claim poses is whether the facts of his case are "clearly distinguishable" from those in Rummel's. If they are not, the Rummel result--no constitutional violation--applies.

We conclude that Rummel is fatal to Burt's proportionality attack. In Terrebonne v. Butler, 848 F.2d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc), we gleaned two distinctions between Rummel and Solem: " [ (1) ] that overturning Rummel's sentence would have required questioning a legislative judgment⁶ , and [ (2) ] that parole was available to Rummel [after twelve years] but [wholly unavailable] to Helm." Here, neither distinction serves to differentiate Burt's cause. As in Rummel, we cannot reject Burt's sentence without casting doubt on a so-called "legislatively-imposed" punishment.⁷  With respect to parole, Burt (like Helm) is indeed ineligible. Nevertheless, because Burt (unlike Helm) is to serve but fifteen years, his sentence places him on a par with Rummel, who was eligible for parole only upon serving twelve years of a life term. Alternatively stated, "the practical effect of [Rummel's] sentence was twelve years without parole or probation-- [which poses] a quantitative difference of only three years." Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215, 220 (Miss.1990).⁸ 

Indeed, there are no distinctions that place Burt's appeal out of Rummel 's ambit. The slight differences that do exist between the two causes, if anything, cut against Burt rather than for him. For example, although both Burt and Rummel have been convicted of three "non-violent" offenses, two of Burt's convictions (burglary) are not among the ranks of the "truly non-violent" offenses. Terrebonne, 848 F.2d at 502.

Given our conclusion that Rummel controls, we need not subject Burt's sentence to the tripartite proportionality test first expressed in Solem.

III

We thus reject Burt's claim. Although Mississippi may have imposed a harsh sentence on Burt, it has not transgressed his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.