Does the mandatory firearm use enhancement violate the Eighth Amendment?

Constitution. We disagree. The protection afforded by the Eighth Amendment is narrow. It applies only in the "'exceedingly rare'" and "'extreme'" case. (Ewing v. California, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 21.) We are not convinced this is such a case. The mandatory firearm use enhancement is noteworthy. However, defendant's crimes are also noteworthy. He shot his fiance in the face and then held a gun to her child's head. He cites no persuasive authority to support his claim his exemplary behavior while incarcerated presents a case in which his aggregate 40-years-to-life sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offenses that it violated the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

Accordingly, we conclude this is not the exceedingly rare and extreme case that violates the federal Constitution.

C. The Trial Court Was Required to Recalculate Defendant's Presentence Custody Credits.

Defendant contends that the trial court was required to recalculate and credit his actual time in custody, including time served both in prison and in county jail, at the resentencing hearing. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 ["[W]hen a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he

Page 10