We conclude that Defendant failed to preserve this issue. However, had Defendant properly challenged his sentence below, we would nonetheless hold that the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. {31} In State v. Burdex, 100 N.M. 197, 201, 668 P.2d 313, 317 (Ct.App.1983), we noted that constitutional claims of cruel and unusual punishment must be raised below to be reviewed on appeal. None of the cases cited by Defendant contradict this proposition. In State v. Rueda, 1999-NMCA-033, ¶ 8, 126 N.M. 738, 975 P.2d 351, the defendant preserved her challenge by arguing to the trial court that the mandatory habitual offender enhancement violated both State and Federal constitutional law. See also State v. Arrington, 115 N.M. 559, 561, 855 P.2d 133, 135 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Because Defendant has not indicated that he
holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that deliberate indifference to prisoners medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs