Nible

Nible v. Terhune

Good Law
119 F. App'x 53
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 9, 2004No. 04-16022California362 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner William Nible appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his three strikes conviction for resisting a park ranger. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Nible contends that his 25 years to life sentence for resisting a park ranger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. This claim is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that a 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 25 years to life sentence under California’s three strikes law for theft did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment).

Nible also contends that the state trial court violated his due process rights when it gave CALJIC 17.41.1, which instructs members of the deliberating jury to report any juror who might be considering his or her power to nullify. As Nible now…

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.