Finn
Johnson v. Finn
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Ray A. Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence for first degree residential burglary and petty theft with a prior, in violation of CaLPenal Code §§ 459 and 688/488. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.
Johnson contends that his 25 years to life plus ten years sentence under California’s three strikes law, CaLPenal Code Ann. § 667 (West 1999), 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 on cruel and unusual punishment).