Skinner

concurring.

I concur in the memorandum disposition because, under Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 *912 (2003), we are obligated to consider the sentence in this case not as a single life sentence (even though 225 years is, obviously, undoubtedly more than a lifetime), but as a series of twenty-five-years-to-life sentences. If we were free to focus on the total sentence, I would conclude otherwise.

Andrade involved two twenty-five year sentences, for two incidents of shoplifting videotapes from Kmart stores, on dates two weeks apart. The Court referred to “the state court’s affirmance of two sentences of 25 years to life in prison,” 538 U.S. at 68 , and stated:

Id. at 74 n. 1.

Moreover, the Court maintained that “Andrade retains the possibility of parole,” id. at 74, again, apparently looking at each sentence independently. Noting the dissent’s argument that “it is ‘unrealistic’ to think that a sentence of 50 years to life for Andrade is not equivalent to life in prison without parole,” id. at 74 n. 1, the Court did not focus on the slim possibility that Andrade would actually live long enough to be paroled. Instead, the Court rejected a focus…

MEMORANDUM *

After he was convicted of twenty counts of theft-related offenses, petitioner James Skinner was sentenced to 225 years to life imprisonment under California’s Three Strikes Law. He challenged that sentence under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the district court denied his petition for habeas corpus. He now appeals that decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and we affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004). “Under AEDPA, habeas relief is proper only if the state court’s adjudication of the merits of the habeas claim ‘resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)).

Although Skinner’s sentence is harsh, we cannot say that it is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the stringent standards of AEDPA. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-76 , 123 S.Ct. 1166…