Terhune

*932 MEMORANDUM *

Robert Gonzales appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Gonzales contends that his 35-year-to-life sentence imposed pursuant to California’s three strikes law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because he committed a non-violent burglary and had no criminal history of violence. Both the California Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal issued postcard denials of Gonzales’s habeas petition. Accordingly, “ ‘we “look through” the unexplained ... decision[s] to the last reasoned decision ... as the basis for the state court’s judgment.’ ” Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911 , 917 n. 5 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072 , 1079 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000)). The last reasoned decision in this case is the Riverside County Superior Court’s denial of Gonzales’s habeas petition on procedural grounds. Because no California court has addressed the merits of Gonzales’s constitutional claim, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) deferential standard does not apply and our review is de novo. See…