Richard Bridgewater v. Ernie Roe

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Richard Bridgewater appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He presents two arguments: 1) his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it is disproportionate to the sentence his co-defendant received, and 2) his trial counsel’s previous work as a deputy district attorney and campaign for District Attorney created a conflict of interest that precluded constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.

Bridgewater fails to cite any binding precedent supporting a proportionality review analysis that compares a defendant’s sentence to that of his co-defendant. The factors that are relevant to a proportionality review are: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (Hi) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). The Supreme Court has declined, even in capital cases, to add an additional layer of review based on sentences received by co-defendants. Pulley v.…