What is the case law on recidivism, cruel and unusual punishment, and how has the Court treated the appellant in the context of his appeal against his enhanced sentence?

Appellant's sentence was enhanced by 21 years as a result of his recidivism, which includes prior strike and serious felony convictions for armed robbery and a prior prison term. As the People accurately note, "[a]ppellant spent almost all of his entire adult life either in prison or on parole and he violated his parole over and over again." He was actually on parole for committing false imprisonment by violence when he committed the instant offenses. Appellant has failed to "overcome [his] 'considerable burden' in convincing us his sentence was disproportionate to his level of culpability. [Citation.]" (People v. Weddle (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1197.) His claim of cruel and unusual punishment accordingly fails.