Wallace

Wallace v. Mueller

Good Law
68 F. App'x 828
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 2003No. 02-56366; D.C. No. CV-00-01855-KCalifornia249 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Larry Dean Wallace appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his three-strikes sentence for evading a police officer with reckless driving. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

Wallace first contends that his 25-years-to-life sentence violates the equal protection clause. The district court correctly determined that because Wallace does not demonstrate that others similarly situated were systematically treated better than he, Wallace fails to establish a prima facie case of uneven application of California’s three-strikes law. See McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9th Cir.1991).

Wallace’s next contention that his sentence of 25-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90 , 155…

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.