Opinion ID: 776953
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: California Court of Appeal Opinion in Bray

Text: 77 Bray explicitly raised the argument that his sentence violated the United States Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The California Court of Appeal opinion in his case, however, referred exclusively to California law and failed to mention any of the three critical Supreme Court cases. More significantly, the court refused to give any weight to the relatively minor nature of his current offense. After reviewing Bray's criminal history, the court stated that, [q]uite clearly, Bray's sentence is the result of his recidivist behavior and it is that behavior that justifies the 25 years to life term. 19 78 In Andrade, we held that upholding an indeterminate life sentence for a petty theft offense which is normally a misdemeanor constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law governing the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 270 F.3d at 766. Because, as we have shown, Bray's case is materially indistinguishable from Andrade, had the state court conducted an analysis under the controlling precedents, it would have been unreasonable for it not to conclude under the Solem test that Bray's sentence was grossly disproportionate to his petty theft offense, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, the Bray court's decision that the statute, as applied, was constitutional is clearly erroneous, and Bray would be entitled to relief under the unreasonable application clause of AEDPA had the state court applied the relevant Supreme Court precedent. Van Tran, 212 F.3d at 1153-54. 20 Having determined that there was clear error sufficient to satisfy the unreasonable application clause, we hold that a fortiori the state court decision was erroneous and merits habeas relief under the contrary to clause. See Packer, 277 F.3d at 1102 & n. 12 (holding that, when a state court decision fails to apply controlling Supreme Court precedent, the fact that the result is erroneous is sufficient, so long as the Brecht standard is met). Therefore, Bray is entitled to habeas relief.