In Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), the defendant was sentenced to life in prison under a Texas recidivist statute, upon his conviction of a third felony. His current offense and his two prior convictions were nonviolent forms of theft. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence against a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. It commented, "Having twice imprisoned him for felonies, Texas was entitled to place upon Rummell the onus of one who is simply unable to bring his conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law of the State. The primary goals of a recidivist statute are to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time. This segregation and its duration are based not merely on that person's most recent offense but also on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes. The point at which a recidivist will be deemed to have demonstrated the necessary propensities and the amount of time that the recidivist will be isolated from society are matters largely within the discretion of the punishing jurisdiction." ( Rummell v. Estelle, supra, 445 U.S. at pp. 284-285.) The Supreme Court upheld a life sentence imposed under a Texas recidivist statute for a defendant convicted of obtaining $ 120.75 by false pretenses after incurring previous convictions for fraudulent use of a credit card and passing a forged check. The court described the statute as "nothing more than a societal decision that when such a person commits yet another felony, he should be subjected to the admittedly serious penalty of incarceration for life, subject only to the State's judgment as to whether to grant him parole." ( Id. at p. 278.) The Supreme Court addressed the proportionality claim of an appellant who had received a mandatory life sentence under a prior version of the Texas habitual offender statute for a conviction for obtaining $ 120.75 by false pretenses. Id., 445 U.S. at 266, 100 S. Ct. at 1135. The life sentence was imposed because the appellant also had two prior felony convictions - one for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $ 80.00 worth of goods or services and the other for passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36. Id., 445 U.S. at 266, 100 S. Ct. at 1134-35. After both recognizing the legislative prerogative to classify offenses as felonies and considering the purpose of the habitual offender statute, the court determined that the appellant's mandatory life sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id., 445 U.S. at 285, 100 S. Ct. at 1145. The United States Supreme Court held it was not "cruel and unusual punishment" to impose a life sentence, under a Texas recidivist statute, on a defendant convicted of his third felony: obtaining $ 120.75 by false pretenses. ( Rummel v. Estelle, supra, 445 U.S. 263.) The defendant had previously been convicted of passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36, and of fraudulently using a credit card to obtain $ 80 worth of goods or services. (Ibid.) As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, by imposing severe sentences on repeat offenders, the state promotes a legitimate interest in safeguarding society from crime. "The purpose of a recidivist statute . . . is to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time." (Rummel v. Estelle, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 284.) "Thus the interest of the State of Texas here is not simply that of making criminal the unlawful acquisition of another person's property; it is in addition the interest, expressed in all recidivist statutes, in dealing in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society as established by its criminal law." (Id. at p. 276.) In Rummel v. Estelle, the court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole for a defendant convicted of obtaining $ 120.75 by false pretenses; the defendant's prior felonies were fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain goods or services worth $ 80 and passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36. (Rummel, supra, 445 U.S. at pp. 265-266.) All of the defendant's crimes were felonies, but none was violent. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the opinion of an en banc panel of the appellate court that application of Texas's recidivist statute did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at p. 285.) The court noted that statutes requiring longer sentences for recidivists generally do not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at p. 268.) In sum, the defendant was given a mandatory life sentence for stealing $ 120.75 and having prior convictions for fraud involving $ 80 worth of goods and passing a forged check for $ 28.36. (Id. at p. 265.) The court rejected the defendant's claim that his sentence was disproportionate to the severity of his current offense. The court pointed out that the primary goals of a recidivist statute are to "deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time. This segregation and its duration are based not merely on that person's most recent offense but also on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes . . . . The point at which a recidivist will be deemed to have demonstrated the necessary propensities and the amount of time that the recidivist will be isolated from society are matters largely within the discretion of the punishing jurisdiction." (Id. at pp 284-285.) The United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a Texas recidivist statute requiring life imprisonment on conviction of a third felony. Over the course of nine years Rummel was convicted of only three offenses: a 1964 conviction for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $ 80 worth of goods or services, a 1969 conviction for passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36, and the 1973 conviction for obtaining $ 120.75 by false pretenses. ( Rummel v. Estelle, supra, 445 U.S. at pp.265-266.) In response to Rummel's argument that life imprisonment for the 1973 conviction was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime committed, the Court concluded the mandatory life sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. ( Id. at pp. 284-285.) It commented, "Having twice imprisoned him for felonies, Texas was entitled to place upon Rummell the onus of one who is simply unable to bring his conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law of the State. The primary goals of a recidivist statute are to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time. This segregation and its duration are based not merely on that person's most recent offense but also on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes. The point at which a recidivist will be deemed to have demonstrated the necessary propensities and the amount of time that the recidivist will be isolated from society are matters largely within the discretion of the punishing jurisdiction." (Ibid.) The United States Supreme Court upheld a life sentence imposed on a defendant following his third theft-related felony conviction, although the total loss from his three crimes was less than $ 230. Concluding the sentence was not cruel and unusual, the court explained that "the purpose of a recidivist statute such as that involved here is not to simplify the task of prosecutors, judges, or juries. Its primary goals are to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time.