Isaac Ramirez v. R.A. Castro, Warden

The State of California through its Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Isaac Ramirez on the grounds that (1) his 25-years-to-life sentence under California’s “Three Strikes” law, CaLPenal Code §§ 667, 667.5, and 1170.12, violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) the California Court of Appeal’s decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court.

In May 1996, Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 YCR for which he had not paid. He immediately surrendered to authorities and returned the VCR; the encounter was without violence. For this crime, prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail. Instead, prosecutors chose to use two nonviolent shoplifting offenses to which Ramirez pleaded guilty in 1991, for both of which he served one sentence of just over six months in county jail, to charge him with one count…

dissenting:

I respectfully, and regretfully, dissent.

I agree with the majority that Ramirez’s sentence is inappropriately harsh. For shoplifting a $199 videocassette recorder, *776 having previously shoplifted twice before, he was sentenced to spend between 25 years and the rest of his life in prison, with no eligibility for parole until he has served at least 25 years. Even Hammurabi limited the penalty for an eye to an eye.

True, Ramirez’s recidivism suggests that if he is not more or less permanently caged, he may do something like this again. Some people commit relatively ■small crimes, without graduating to more serious ones, but appear unable to be deterred. The sentencing goals of incapacitation and deterrence are thus served by the harsh sentence. But those are not the only goals. The goals of reaffirming societal norms and of just retribution are dis-served as much by an excessively harsh sentence as by an excessively lenient one. Furthermore, excessively harsh sentences such as this one create a potential incentive for a defendant facing a third-strike conviction to take drastic measures to avoid a conviction. This raises a risk of obstruction of justice and even…

365 F.3d 755 Isaac RAMIREZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. No. 02-56066. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued July 18, 2003. Submitted January 8, 2004. Filed April 19, 2004. As Amended April 27, 2004. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Raquel M. Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; and Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA for the respondent-appellant. Petitioner-appellee Isaac Ramirez in pro se. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05602-JSL. Before: NOONAN, KLEINFELD, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: 1 The State of California through its Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, appeals from the district court's judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Isaac Ramirez on the grounds that (1) his 25-years-to-life sentence under California's "Three Strikes" law, Cal.Penal Code §§ 667, 667.5, and 1170.12, violated his Eighth Amendment…