Andrews

Andrews v. Lewis

Good Law
62 F. App'x 183
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 25, 2003No. 00-56282; D.C. No. CV-97-09187-NMMCalifornia301 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tom William Andrews appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence for petty theft with a prior. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

Andrews contends that his sentence of 28-years-to-life under California’s three strikes law, California Penal Code section 667, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This contention was recently foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that a state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1190 , 155 L.Ed.2d 105 (2003) (holding that petitioner’s 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment).

Therefore, it was not an unreasonable application of Federal law for the California courts to affirm Andrews’ 28-years-to-life sentence, and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.