In Re Jones

*533 Opinion

The petitioner is now imprisoned in Soledad State Prison following a conviction on pleas of guilty to two counts of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11531, 1 sale of marijuana. The only issue presented by this petition for habeas corpus is whether the imposition of a sentence of five years to life in this case constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.

This question has been presented to Courts of Appeal of California in numerous cases and as stated in People v. Sheridan (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 429, 431 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 655 ]: . . statutes dealing with marijuana have repeatedly withstood attacks concerning their constitutionality, including claims that the statutes violate the due process and equal protection clauses and that the punishments prescribed are cruel and unusual. (See People v. Oatis, 264 Cal.App.2d 324 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 524 ]; People v. Cuellar, 262 Cal. App.2d 766 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 846 ]; People v. Aguiar, 257 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Keller, 245 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] . . . .)”

As stated in People v. Cuellar (1968) supra, 262 Cal.App.2d 766 , 769-770: “. . . the Legislature is now holding hearings concerning the…

I dissent.

Petitioner Dorian C. Jones has served one year and seven months of a sentence of five years to life in Soledad after pleas of guilty to two counts of selling marijuana. This matter is properly before us on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, based upon the contention that the sentence for a first offense of selling marijuana constitutes a violation of the California constitutional proscription against imposition of cruel or unusual punishment. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 6.) This claim must be tested by the rule of In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410, 415-416 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ], that a defendant under an indeterminate sentence has, in effect, been sentenced to the maximum term provided by law and that the constitutional validity of the sentence must be judged by that maximum. Petitioner herein, thus, must have his sentence tested by the maximum term possible, life imprisonment.

It is to be noted at the outset that petitioner was sentenced on June 2, 1972. The trial court thus did not have the guidelines relative to determining cruel or unusual punishment as set forth in In re Lynch, supra, decided December 1972. This appellate court also has, as a part of the…

The petitioner is now imprisoned in Soledad State Prison following a conviction on pleas of guilty to two counts of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11531, [1] sale of marijuana. The only issue presented by this petition for habeas corpus is whether the imposition of a sentence of five years to life in this case constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.

This question has been presented to Courts of Appeal of California in numerous cases and as stated in People v. Sheridan (1969) 271 Cal. App.2d 429, 431 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 655 ]: "... statutes dealing with marijuana have repeatedly withstood attacks concerning their constitutionality, including claims that the statutes violate the due process and equal protection clauses and that the punishments prescribed are cruel and unusual. (See People v. Oatis, 264 Cal. App.2d 324 [ 70 Cal. Rptr. 524 ]; People v. Cuellar, 262 Cal. App.2d 766 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 846 ]; People v. Aguiar, 257 Cal. App.2d 597 [ 65 Cal. Rptr. 171 ]; People v. Keller, 245 Cal. App.2d 711 [ 54 Cal. Rptr. 154 ]....)"

As stated in People v. Cuellar (1968) supra, 262 Cal. App.2d 766 , 769-770: "... the Legislature is now holding hearings…