Narrative Opinion Summary
Warden Ernest Roe appeals the district court’s ruling that partially granted inmate Richard Baxter's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which claimed that his 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The appeal references the Supreme Court's decisions in *Lockyer v. Andrade* and *Ewing v. California*, which upheld similar lengthy sentences under California’s three-strikes law. Based on these precedents, the district court's order is reversed concerning Baxter's claim of cruel and unusual punishment, and the case is remanded. The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review and Reversalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the district court's order regarding the claim of cruel and unusual punishment, demonstrating the appellate court's role in re-evaluating lower court decisions.
Reasoning: Based on these precedents, the district court's order is reversed concerning Baxter's claim of cruel and unusual punishment, and the case is remanded.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth Amendmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether a 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior conviction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, referencing established Supreme Court decisions.
Reasoning: Warden Ernest Roe appeals the district court’s ruling that partially granted inmate Richard Baxter's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which claimed that his 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Precedential Influence of Supreme Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's reversal was based on precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, indicating that lengthy sentences under California’s three-strikes law do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Reasoning: The appeal references the Supreme Court's decisions in *Lockyer v. Andrade* and *Ewing v. California*, which upheld similar lengthy sentences under California’s three-strikes law.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision specifies limitations on publication and citation, aligning with Ninth Circuit rules governing unpublished opinions.
Reasoning: The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.