Case Name: John Albert RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. VASQUEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-12
Citations: 370 F. App'x 870
Docket Number: No. 08-55201
Parties: John Albert RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. VASQUEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
John Albert RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. VASQUEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 2010.
Filed March 12, 2010.
Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Law Offices of Kenneth M. Stern, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
John Albert Richardson, pro se.
Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Albert Richardson appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition asserting that his California three strikes sentence of 28 years to life violates the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253 and reverse and remand with instructions to grant the petition.
We review the district court de novo and the California Court of Appeal's decision to determine if it is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir.2008). We apply clearly established Supreme Court authority existing when the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in 2004. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). The jury found Richardson guilty of failing to register either a change-of-address or a new second address in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 290(a)(1)(A) or (B). A sentence of 28 years to life for a § 290 violation of this nature is grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore, runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment. See Gonzalez, 551 F.3d at 877.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.