Jeffrey Miles v. D. Runnels

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Jeffrey Miles appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. He makes two arguments for relief.

Miles first argues that his sentence of 60 years to life for two first-degree burglaries under California’s three strikes law is cruel and unusual punishment. Because the state court has rejected this claim on the merits, habeas relief will not be granted unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The only clearly established law for an Eighth Amendment challenge to a noncap-ital sentence is the “gross disproportionality principle,” which prohibits sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and is “applicable only in the ‘exceedingly rare’ and ‘extreme’ case.” Lockyer v. Andrade (Andrade II), 538 U.S. 63, 73 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)).

The sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crime in this case. The severity…