Romero

We publish this case to underscore our disagreement with the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Brown v. Mayle (9th Cir. 2002) 283 F.3d 1019 . In that decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held “that the California Court of Appeal decisions upholding 25-year-to-life sentences for petty theft were contrary to and unreasonable applications of clearly established Supreme Court law.” (Id. at p. 1020.) Although the Ninth Circuit applies what it characterizes as the more stringent reasonable-application standard of the Supreme Court law as stated in Andrade v. Attorney General of State of California (9th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 743 , it does so in a manner which would invalidate use of petty theft with a prior as a third strike, regardless of defendant’s prior criminal record.

We do not concede that all of the California decisions affirming 25-year-to-life sentences, under California’s “Three Strikes” law, for felony petty theft, including our opinion today, are “contrary to” or involve an “unreasonable application” of United States Supreme Court precedent as to justify a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 United States Code section 2254 Our appellate courts have properly…