Earle

Earle v. Runnels

Good Law
176 F. App'x 883
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 2006No. 05-15739California848 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Earle, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his *885 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, challenging his Three Strikes sentence of 26-years-to-life imprisonment for receiving stolen property, a 16-year old motorcycle. Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, habeas relief is proper 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We affirm the district court’s denial of Earle’s petition.

Earle’s adult record consists of six first-degree burglary convictions. For those in 1988 and 1989, he was placed on probation. For those in 1990, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. After his release, Earle was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Despite his recidivism, Earle claims that the state’s imposition of a sentence of 26-years-to-life imprisonment for receiving stolen property violated the Eighth Amendment. Although Earle’s sentence is…

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.