Lockyer v. Andrade
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
Lockyer v. Andrade
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), decided the same day as _Ewing v. California _ (a case with a similar subject matter), held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for a claim that a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law was an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments . The decision weakened proportionality review for prison sentences.
Contents
Legal background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Legal background")
Recidivist sentencing laws
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Recidivist sentencing laws")
It is an established and uncontroversial practice of courts to impose harsher sentences for repeat offenders with prior felony convictions. : 5 Many states have enacted three-strike laws imposing an automatic life sentence for a "third strike" (third felony conviction). However, the "three-strike law" enacted by California after the murder of Polly Klaas has been criticized for its harshness.
Unlike other states, California did not require the "third strike" to be a violent felony. Polly Klaas's father was opposed to non-violent third strikes: "I've had my car broken into and my radio stolen and I've had my daughter murdered, and I know the difference."
In 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States granted _certiorari _ for two cases involving California's three-strike law. Lockyer v. Andrade was decided on statutory grounds applying the AEDPA, and the companion case _Ewing v. California _, decided the same day, upheld the California three-strike law on constitutional grounds. : 262
Proportionality review for prison sentences
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Proportionality review for prison sentences")
The Supreme Court has consistently held since _Weems v. United States _ that the Eighth Amendment prohibits disproportionate punishments. This principle of proportionality has roots in the common law and the founding era. : 11 However, the application to prison sentences has been unclear.
In 1980, William Rehnquist held in _Rummel v. Estelle _ that the length of prison sentences was "purely a matter of legislative prerogative". : 255 However, in _Solem v. Helm _ proportionality review was applied to hold that a life sentence was a disproportionate punishment for bouncing a check, even with six prior convictions for non-violent offenses. Although Chief Justice Warren E. Burger argued in dissent that the Solem decision was inconsistent with Rummel, the majority held it was not. : 255
Writing for the Court in _Harmelin v. Michigan _, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the possession of over 650 grams of cocaine was "as serious and violent as the crime of felony murder without specific intent to kill" and, citing Rummel, stated that the court has never invalidated on constitutional grounds a mandatory life without parole sentence for "a crime as severe as this one". : 13
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act")
In 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act made major changes to the federal habeas statute. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) , the authority of federal courts to even hear a claim that had been "adjudicated on the merits" by a state court was limited to decisions that "involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law". This provision conflicted with Ninth Circuit precedents that required federal courts to review habeas claims de novo before applying AEDPA's standards to decide the claim.
Trial of Leandro Andrade
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: Trial of Leandro Andrade")
On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade, a nine-year Army veteran and father of three, stole five children's videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California . Two weeks later, he stole four children's videotapes from a different K-Mart store in Montclair, California . Andrade had been in and out of the state and federal prison systems since 1982. He developed a drug addiction while serving in the Army, and by the time of these two crimes in 1995, he had committed multiple burglaries for which he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Since 1994, non-violent felonies can serve as a third "strike" under California's three-strikes law and expose the defendant to a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Andrade's minor shoplifting was a felony under California state law because he had prior convictions. : 2
The trial court denied Andrade's request to classify the two petty theft charges as misdemeanors, and Andrade was ultimately convicted of the two felony theft charges. As a result of his prior convictions, Andrade was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal applied Rummel and affirmed Andreade's conviction and sentence. The California Supreme Court declined review.
Ninth Circuit
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: Ninth Circuit")
Andrade next filed a petition for _habeas corpus _ in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asking the court to evaluate the constitutionality of his sentence under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution . The district court denied the petition.
The Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability for Andrade's Eighth Amendment claim. Finding that the state court's decision was an "unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law" and "irreconcilable with ... Solem', the Ninth ruled in favor of Andrade. The State of California asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it agreed to do so.
Supreme Court
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockyer_v._Andrade&action=edit§ion=7 "Edit section: Supreme Court")
[Erwin Chemerinsky](https:/
…
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.