People v. Jimenez CA6, H047943

Defendant Manuel Jesus Jimenez was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against three minor girls (one under age 10) committed over about two years, involving digital penetration and repeated touching while abusing a position of trust.
The prosecution charged 19 counts under various Penal Code sections for lewd acts and child sexual penetration; several counts were dismissed at trial and multiple-victim enhancements were found true.
The trial court originally imposed a determinate term (4 years 4 months) plus an indeterminate term of 175 years to life (consecutive 25‑to‑life terms); this court reversed for resentencing because of unauthorized enhancements.
At resentencing the court imposed consecutive 15‑to‑life terms on seven counts (concurrent on two others), for an aggregate indeterminate term of 105 years to life; the determinate term remained unchanged.
Jimenez challenged the 105‑to‑life sentence as cruel and/or unusual under the Eighth Amendment and the California Constitution, citing his lack of prior record, limited education, and low recidivism risk.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting both the federal and state proportionality challenges after analyzing the offense gravity, defendant’s background, legislative policy protecting children, and comparative-sentencing considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 105‑to‑life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as grossly disproportionate	People: Sentence is constitutional given multiple victims, repeated offenses, and abuse of trust	Jimenez: Sentence is grossly disproportionate to non‑homicide offenses given his lack of priors and low recidivism risk	Court: No Eighth Amendment violation; comparative and gross‑disproportionality analysis fails to show rare inference of gross disproportionality
Whether the sentence violates the California Constitution (cruel or unusual) under Lynch three‑prong test	People: Legislature’s One‑Strike/multiple‑victim scheme justifies severe penalties to protect children	Jimenez: Sentence shocks the conscience compared to punishments for more serious offenses and other states’ penalties	Court: No state‑constitutional violation; sentence not so disproportionate as to shock the conscience given facts, offender’s role, and legislative judgment

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework for nonhomicide sentences)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (life sentences upheld; successful proportionality challenges are rare)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (upholding severe sentence for noncapital offense)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding lengthy sentence under state law for property offense)
In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (1972) (California three‑part proportionality test and "shocks the conscience" standard)
People v. Wutzke, 28 Cal.4th 923 (2002) (legislative intent and One‑Strike scheme for multiple victims)
People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (1983) (state proportionality analysis and deference to legislative sentencing choices)
People v. Martinez, 71 Cal.App.4th 1502 (1999) (California not required to conform to other states’ penalties)