Document: 538 U.S. 63 LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIAv.ANDRADE. No. 01-1127. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 5, 2002. Decided March 2003. California charged respondent Andrade with two felony counts petty theft a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth videotapes from different stores. Under California's three strikes law, any can constitute the third strike subjecting defendant to prison term 25 years life. The jury found guilty and then that had convictions qualified as serious or violent felonies under regime. Because each his thus triggered separate application judge sentenced him consecutive terms In affirming, Appeal rejected claim sentence violated constitutional prohibition against cruel unusual punishment. It Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, proportionality analysis questionable in light Harmelin Michigan, 501 957. compared facts Andrade's case those Rummel Estelle, 445 263 — which this life was grossly disproportionate formed predicate for sentence, id., at 265 concluded not disproportionate. denied discretionary review. Federal District subsequent habeas petition, but Ninth Circuit granted certificate appealability reversed. Reviewing Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), latter court held an unreasonable clearly established federal law 28 C. § 2254(d)(1) occurs when there is clear error; both remain good are instructive applying Harmelin; Appeal's disregard resulted irreconcilable Solem, constituting error. Held: erred ruling decision contrary to, of, Court's within meaning 2254(d)(1). Pp. 70-77. (a) AEDPA does require adopt one methodology deciding only question matters whether state involved law. case, reach erred, focuses solely on relief barred by 70-71. (b) This must first decide what constitutes such "clearly established" claims Rummel, establish principle so it Eighth Amendment. 2254(d)(1), law" governing legal principles set forth time renders its decision. difficulty position has consistent path courts follow determining particular violate Indeed, emerging jurisprudence area gross disproportionality applies sentences. cases lack clarity regarding factors may indicate disproportionality, principle's precise contours unclear, applicable "exceedingly rare" "extreme" case. Harmelin, supra, 1001 (KENNEDY, J., concurring part judgment). 71-73. (c) "contrary of," principle. First, precedent if applied rule contradicts confronts materially indistinguishable nevertheless arrives result. Williams Taylor, 529 362, 405-406. implicates relevant Solem. specifically stated they did overrule turn See 998 J.). Also, here fall between either. Thus, confront yet arrive Second, "unreasonable application" clause, grant writ identifies correct unreasonably prisoner's S., 413. be objectively unreasonable, just incorrect erroneous. Id., 409, 410, 412. Here, defining "objectively unreasonable" mean "clear error." While based announced, gives legislatures broad discretion fashion fits scope "precise contours" "unclear." And conclude these "contours" permitted affirmance sentence. Cf., e. g., Riggs California, 525 1114, 1115 (STEVENS, dissenting denial certiorari). 73-77. 270 F. 3d 743, O'CONNOR, delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SOUTER, filed opinion, STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, joined, post, p. 77. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Douglas P. Danzig, Deputy Attorney General argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Bill Lockyer, General, pro se, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Gary W. Schons, Senior Carl H. Horst, Supervising General. Erwin Chemerinsky respondent. brief Paul Hoffman, Jordan Budd, Steven Shapiro, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Daniel Tokaji, Alan L. Schlosser.* JUSTICE O'CONNOR Court. 1 raises issue States Appeals affirming Leandro "third strike" determined 2 * A 3 On 4, 1995, five $84.70 Kmart store Ontario, California. Security personnel detained leaving store. 18, entered Montclair, placed four $68.84 rear waistband pants. Again, security guards apprehended exiting premises. Police subsequently arrested crimes. 4 These incidents encounters enforcement. According probation officer's presentence report, been out since 1982. January 1982, convicted misdemeanor offense 6 days jail 12 months' probation. again 1982 multiple first-degree residential burglary. He pleaded least counts, April following year 120 months prison. 1988, "[t]ransportation [m]arijuana," App. 24, eight 1990, ordered serve 180 jail. September same ibid., 2,191 1991, parole violation escape paroled penitentiary system 1993. 5 officer interviewed arrest report notes: "The admitted committing offense. further went into K-Mart Store steal videos. took them sell could buy heroin. heroin addict 1977. says gets always something stupid. admits addiction controls steals habit." 25. 7 1990 conviction, State Cal. Penal Code Ann. 666 (West Supp. 2002). so-called "wobbler" because punishable either felony. Ibid.; cf. Ewing ante, 16-17 (plurality opinion). prosecute prosecutor. 17. trial also reduce charge sentencing. People Superior Los Angeles Cty. ex rel. Alvarez, 14 4th 968, 979, 928 2d 1171, 1177-1178 (1997); see 8 strike, subject 667(e)(2)(A) 1999); 16. prosecutor decided rather than misdemeanors. motion offenses misdemeanors, before verdict proceedings. 9 conviction. find qualifying made special finding burglary qualifies purposes §§ 667.5, 1192.7 19. As consequence, 2002) Pursuant 667(c)(6), 667(e)(2)(B). oral argument announced Garcia, 20 490, 976 831 (1999) postdates remains "available" "file another corpus petition" arguing should "sentencing have right dismiss count-by-count basis." Tr. Oral Arg. 24. B 10 direct appeal 1997, affirmed violates "the analysis" 277 (1983), "is of" 957 (1991). Pet. Cert. 76. our (1980), where we defendant's "`grossly disproportionate' sentence." 265. examined Rummel: "Comparing [Andrade's] crimes criminal history cannot say 50 punishment Constitution." 76-77. 11 After review, petition petition. Amendment, reversed judgment 743 (2001). noted reviewing 110 Stat. 1214. Applying own precedent, "when independent review `leaves us "firm conviction" answer, [state] court, other, adopted, erroneous other words error occurred.'" 3d, 753 (alteration original) (quoting Van Tran Lindsey, 212 1143, 1153-1154 (CA9 2000)). 13 reviewed most recent major precedents supra. "follow[ed] test prescribed Justice Kennedy Harmelin," concluding "both Harmelin's application." 766. court's "disregard results law," ... Solem," 766-767. Judge Sneed dissented part. wrote "[t]he imposed `exceedingly rare' imprisonment prohibited Amendment's proscription punishment." 767 judgment)). view, upholding "not law." 772. We certiorari, 535 969 (2002), now reverse. II 15 stealing similarly maintains States." U.S.C. 16 circumscribes Section 2254 provides: 17 "(d) An behalf person custody pursuant shall respect adjudicated merits proceedings unless adjudication "(1) 18 requires de novo standard See, 1154-1155; Clark Murphy, 317 1038, 1044, n. 2003). disagree approach. Weeks Angelone, 528 225 (2000). do instead focus 2254(d) forecloses Amendment claim. III 19 threshold matter here, relies upon series (1991) 2254(d)(1)'s phrase "refers holdings, opposed dicta, decisions state-court decision." 412 words, 405, 413; Bell Cone, 685, 698 (2002). situations, task will straightforward. position, however, model clarity. 965 (opinion J.); 996, follow. 20-23. Through thicket jurisprudence, emerges 2254(d)(1): sentences years. 21 Our exhibit disproportionality. (the heavily), stated: "It 25-year generally more severe 15-year would difficult former while not." 294 (footnote omitted). KENNEDY SCALIA repeatedly emphasized clarity: "Solem scarcely expression J.), "adher[ing] narrow all respects," 996 judgment), "we objective standards distinguish years," "are unclear," 22 amenable to" framework principle, judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted); 290; 272. IV 23 final 24 cases" "if result precedent." 405-406; 694. length availability parole, severity underlying offense, impact recidivism, judgment); 288, 13, 303-304, 32. allows reasonably rely therefore cases. without possibility parole. 279. 267. retains acknowledged apply "similar factual situation." 304, resembles some degree Cf. 40 (BREYER, dissenting) (recognizing "twilight zone Rummel"). Consequently, "confron[t] arriv[e] 406.1 26 "[u]nder `unreasonable application' case." clause unreasonable. 409. 27 initial analysis. 1152-1154, defined standards, same. gloss fails give proper deference conflating (even error) unreasonableness. 410; 699. enough "independent question," left "`firm conviction'" "`erroneous.'" 1153-1154). precisely opposite: "Under then, simply concludes erroneously incorrectly." 411. Rather, 409; 699; Woodford Visciotti, 537 19, (2002) (per curiam). 29 permits announced. 407 (noting "an case"). unclear." 30 several Members expressed "uncertainty" joined SOUTER respecting certiorari) ("[T]here uncertainty about how dealing recidivists apply"); 1116 ("It unclear how, all, record beyond requisite `strikes' affects constitutionality sentence"); Durden 531 1184 (2001) (SOUTER, (arguing hear "potential disagreement over AEDPA).2 31 reserves extraordinary purposes, affirm V 32 Circuit, accordingly, 33 ordered. Notes: Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson Criminal Legal Foundation et al. amici curiae urging reversal. Briefs Public Defenders Association Kenneth I. Clayman; Families Amend Three Strikes Gerald Uelmen; National Defense Lawyers Sheryl Gordon McCloud; Donald Ray Hill Susan Azad Kathryn M. Davis. Attorneys Dennis Stout Grover Merritt; Michael Albert J. Menaster Alex Ricciardulli. argues receiving makes similar inSolem (1983). Post, 78-79 (dissenting "controlling." 78. Given (1991), precedent. extent similarity entitles prong 2254(d), reject reasons given infra, Moreover, true "sentence understood total amount stole." To contrary, provides triggers arising operative facts." 667(c)(6) thefts stores occurring weeks apart distinct relying Robinson 370 660 (1962), "unrealistic" think equivalent 79. argument, misses point. Based precedents, SOUTER's treat 77-year-old murder crime. Two become age persons sentenced. hold 2254(d)(1)Post, 79-82. His reasons, change 34 whom BREYER join, dissenting. 35 articulated Court: unconstitutional. 72-73; (1991); (1983); (1980). For BREYER'S dissent 35, I survive less grave Ewing's, received twice long triggering sure, couched general disproportion necessarily leaves much leeway statutory criterion conditions 2254(d). nonetheless presents holding entitling relief. respectfully accordingly. 36 reason happens effort recidivist sentencing, authority doubt 998. Although important instructions analysis, 290-292, controlling benchmark uttering $100 "no account" check crime, even though committed six nonviolent felonies. explaining contrasted Rummel's ground included eligibility years, 297. 37 fours point 279-281. Andrade, like repeat offender who fairly trifling value, $150, their records comparable, including (though residential), no person. respective sentences, too, strikingly alike. occurred occasions, stole. separated weeks; victim; apparently constituted parts single, continuing finance drug sales; seriousness measured dollar value things taken; government single indictment. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 3D1.2 (Nov. (grouping temporally sentencing purposes). accordingly spoke collectively well, carrying 50-year minimum eligibility, 77 ("[W]e disproportionate"), old sentenced, substantial period amounts 287 (when considering "`the considered abstract'" 660, 667 (1962))); 280-281 (defendant's informs assessment claim). ways conclusion practical equivalence 87, 74 ("Andrade parole"), discount Solem's example, did, 76 ("[T]he current validity questionable"). unrealistic; 87-year-old man released behind bars real left, survives all. latter, disparaging reference wrong 38 second required rests alternative way looking applications three-strikes construing challenge going second, theft.1 understand why revealing look way, helps recall basic inherent comparison penalty disclose truly limit passed, large believe institutionally equipped better merited behavior. 290. substantially aided function determinations itself. 39 State's adoption penalogical theory principal shutting away alludes passing retribution deterrence (see Brief Petitioner 16, 24; Reply 10), justification treats incapacitate crime; need protect public danger demonstrated ("significant society [defendant] imprisoned twenty-five life"); ("statute carefully tailored address defendants pose greatest danger"); ("isolating time"); ("If reasoning accepted, precluded incapacitating him"). 284 ("purpose statute [is] segregate").2 State, chosen moral social reprehensibility isolation; treated seriously, rather, confirmation counter threat incapacitation. incapacitation, helpful determination, risk posed someone specified addressed incapacitation eligibility. 667(e)(2)(A)(ii) 1999). sum, responds condition shown record, society, reflects appropriate exhibiting commits Whether accepts choice policy constitutionally sound, justify imposition minor soon somehow dangerous handful videotapes; dangerousness treating warranting greater longer Since changed closely related thefts, open simple arithmetic multiplying two, resulting benchmark. Far attempting novel penal doubling offered comment supporting 76-79. Perhaps tellingly, seriously argue provided basis date begin run, more. know jurisdiction add reflect fact place am surprised 52 (State's counsel acknowledging "I 50-year-to-life convictions"). repeating trivial crime justifies raise debatable judgments might differ. irrational, acceptance response facially 41 rare demonstrable Legislature well recognized move "in furtherance justice." 667(f)(2) safeguard failed, ensure met. If disproportionate, meaning. fact, Court,ante, 68, (holding basis; mandatory provision). Implicit distinction future repunishment notion must, degree, bear weight elicits. increasingly grow, advance toward double jeopardy violations. When parking violators slow readers borrowed library books, room belief, past permanently resentencing That said, legitimacy record: provide prime example scheme take account convictions, Witte States, 515 389, 403 (1995) determines range possible enhancement sentence). merely support harshest

Category: 0