Giurbino

Smith v. Giurbino

Good Law
71 F. App'x 684
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 2003No. 02-56505; D.C. No. CV-01-00958-DDPCalifornia227 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Allen Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life for drug possession as cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

Smith contends his sentence under California’s “three strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the California state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in upholding Smith’s sentence. See Ewing v. California , — U.S. ——, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1190 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (acknowledging broad discretion possessed by legislatures and holding that three-strikes sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft was not grossly disproportionate); Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-tolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law). The district court therefore properly denied Smith’s petition. See Andrade, 123 S.Ct.…

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.