Amendment were applicable outside the capital context, it is now established that they do govern non-capital sentences. Compare United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 362 (2008), vacated and remanded on other grownds, 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir.2009) (“Whether proportionality analysis applies in non-capital cases such as those involving mandatory minimum sentences is unclear.”) with Graham, 560 U.S. at 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (applying proportionality analysis to invalidate sentence of life without parole for individuals who committed non-homicide offense before age eighteen). “Outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare.” Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 994, 111 S.Ct. 2680
holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of firstdegree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the united states and pennsylvania constitutions holding life in prison without the possibility of parole was not cruel and unusual punishment for juvenile convicted of murder holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence