Does section 12022.53 of the California Penal Code, which imposes a life sentence on a repeat offender for vicariously using a firearm, constitute a constitutional violation?

However, simply because California may impose the harshest punishment when compared to penalties for similar crimes in other jurisdictions does not mean the penalty is unconstitutional. As the appellate court in People v. Gonzales, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 1, 18, explained: "[The defendant] also argues that the punishment imposed under section 12022.53 is unconstitutional because it is greater than the sentencing schemes in other states. We agree with the reasoning of the court in People v. Martinez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1516..., a 'Three Strikes' case: "That California's punishment scheme is among the most extreme does not compel the conclusion that it is unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. This [state's] constitutional consideration does not require California to march in lockstep with other states in fashioning a penal code. It does not require "conforming our Penal Code to the 'majority rule' or the least common denominator of penalties nationwide." [Citation.] Otherwise, California could never take the toughest stance against repeat offenders or any other type of criminal conduct." ' " Here, we do not believe that the mere fact that our Legislature saw fit to impose a greater mandatory punishment than other jurisdictions for vicarious firearm use demonstrates disproportionality in the present case.