(1) that we must conduct a proportionality review and hold that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime, and (2) that we should also compare this aggravator to age-based aggravators in other states and find it invalid. ¶ 30 Although we once conducted proportionality review to determine “whether the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and defendant,” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 196, 560 P.2d 41, 51 (1977), we discontinued the practice in 1992 because proportionality review is fraught with problems and not constitutionally required, State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 416-17, 844 P.2d 566, 583-84 (1992); see also Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We decline to do so in this case as well. ¶
holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that section 636b1c does not require any review at all by the district court of an issue that is not objected to holding that although proportionality review is an additional safeguard against arbitrarily imposed death sentences neither precedent including gregg nor the eighth amendment mandates proportionality review in every case holding that the eighth amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence but forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime holding that the eighth amendment does not require comparative proportionality review by an appellate court