Whether California's sentencing enhancement scheme for certain felony convictions violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (Auer parole atiderain udler artide 2 vectin 92, of calito conPetHON PpOrteton 54 or wmaler with a AanvwOd elrly ttetce doe ealtornia poral ade 2EA)2) AWvalt with a fitecare Prinegped{ frwary Felony ohatve gualit{t ober he facle anviderckion (lee Hit okgewve doer wel (at wile caletortin aw "vinlott kelsey" caleba ford cide we5 G77 (i proportion 6 CxUbEL re wipelytia) of an ‘enhanccmett, Lon techie venwenceor alternettwe ettence’. then ban iv that inplioetel ah gly sace thi, entranceveent Wt (tH vider cal hania Petal abe bt-5) 77 (3) sur calbntia foal cule, $2000.< (trea ovrncact) excde udder ripotikion 64 aot Hiv vinlut enhance ib (ibteL wnler, MliGia feat ade bbot5¢) unt lay 1 Cite Yodo egClader harcene, col eer eal Alternative COnlenc, anh Guus0s ol °QeMary ycheor' 171 at) vitcofencer cali final ade D46¢)@) Aniualt with 4 ican Primary ofeqoe Princafid felony il (ted oner callitiliq poral ake [42.4c) GY) vertur felony offence (w+ doer he-Pltegoner Quilty under the antflement 40 early fie caWidera iin under arficle x cedtil Br of the Alrbulia canter tos [op erition 54 fy waar?