Allen
Allen v. Roe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Nathaniel J. Allen appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the 25-years to life sentence imposed after his jury trial conviction for petty theft with a prior conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
Allen contends that his 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment. This contention is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that California 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, 538 U.S. 11 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Allen’s petition.