Tolbert
Tolbert v. Roe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner William Earl Tolbert appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence for two counts of second degree commercial burglary, and two counts of petty theft with a prior theft conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.
Tolbert contends that his sentence of 50-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 108 (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).