In Davis v. State, 724 So. 2d 342 (Miss. 1998) the Mississippi Supreme Court established a precedent for remanding cases for reconsideration of the sentence in noncapital cases even though the sentence was within the statutory limits in the instance when the maximum penalty was imposed without benefit of a presentence report and when there was a "lack of justification for the sentence on the face of the record . . . ." In Davis v. State, a mother of a small child was sentenced to sixty years in prison for the sale of two rocks of crack cocaine within 700 feet of a church. Id. 344. Under this sentence she would not be eligible for parole until she was seventy-six years old. Id. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that there was a lack of information in the record to explain the severity of the sentence and it should be remanded. Id. 344. There was no information regarding how many prior offenses Davis had committed or the history or nature or punishment for the offenses. Id. Additionally, Davis was not tried as a repeat offender. Id. Furthermore, at the time of sentencing, the trial judge gave no explanation, and the Mississippi Supreme Court did not have the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation. Id. 344. Based on the facts in the case, and the lack of information justifying such a lengthy sentence, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that it could not conclude whether the trial judge abused his discretion; therefore, the court reversed and remanded for re-sentencing. Id. 346 . Davis v. State, addressed the issue of the proportionality of a sentence relative to the nature and details of the crime. That case involved an instance where a twenty-five year old mother was sentenced to sixty years in prison for the sale of two-tenths of a gram of cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church. Davis was not tried as an habitual offender and the trial judge did not have the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation. Id. Additionally, the trial judge failed to give an explanation regarding the imposition of such a long sentence. Id. Without a record which reflects egregious circumstances, the Court will be concerned about the severity of the sentence. Id. The supreme court remanded for re-sentencing, finding there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the maximum sentence allowable under the statute. Id. In essence, the Mississippi Supreme Court set forth a requirement that the trial judge justify any sentence that appears harsh or severe for the charge. Id. In sum, the defendant was a young mother who had been convicted of selling cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church. Such violation was accompanied by an enhanced sentence, pursuant to statute. The judge found the imposition of the sixty-year maximum sentence to essentially be a life sentence, since Davis would be in her late seventies before eligible for parole. 724 So. 2d at 344, On appeal, the court remanded for re-sentencing to allow the trial judge to state his reasons for imposing the sentence. 724 So. 2d at 346.