With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". clear language of Section 9714 and conclude that because Appellant “had at the time of the commission of the current offense previously been convicted of two or more such crimes of violence arising from separate criminal transactions,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(2), the Superior Court properly held that Appellant should be sentenced to a twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence. 1 . There may be some dispute over whether the two crimes committed on t. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), in which a life sentence was given for a three-time felon where the underlying offense was obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). However, there is precedent for finding an Eighth Amendment violation for an unduly harsh penalty imposed pursuant to a three-strikes law. See Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894 (Del.2003) (<HOLDING>). See also Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103

A: holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment
B: holding that the imposition of a life sentence for failure to register as a sex offender constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence was so harsh in comparison to the crime
C: holding that the imposition of a true life sentence on two fourteenyearold offenders for committing the crime of rape was violative of the eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
D: holding that a life sentence pursuant to  841 blaiii was not a cruel and unusual punishment
A.