Case Name: Ernest GUZMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Darrel ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-24
Citations: 88 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 03-55177; D.C. No. CV-02-648-JNK
Parties: Ernest GUZMAN, Petitioner—Appellee, v. Darrel ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellant.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
Ernest GUZMAN, Petitioner—Appellee, v. Darrel ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellant.
No. 03-55177.
D.C. No. CV-02-648-JNK.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 24, 2004.
Ernest Guzman, pro se, Corcoran, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Robert M. Foster, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Respondent Darrel Adams, Warden, California State Prison, Corcoran, California, appeals the district court's judgment granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Ernest Guzman, a California state prisoner. Adams contends that the district court erred in holding that Guzman's sentence of 28 years to life imprisonment for petty theft with a prior theft conviction, in violation of California Penal Code § 484 and 666, was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 68, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), and Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), issued after the district court's decision, this contention has merit. See Andrade, 538 U.S. at 77 (not unreasonable application of clearly established federal law for California court to sentence defendant convicted of petty theft with a prior under California's Three Strikes law). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.