Narrative Opinion Summary
Godown was convicted of second-degree burglary, which is considered a more serious offense than passing a rubber check, described in Solem v. Helm as a notably passive felony. While Godown's sentence is less severe than life without parole, as referenced in Solem, it bears more resemblance to the life sentence with the possibility of parole upheld in Rummel v. Estelle for a minor theft. The California Court of Appeal's ruling that Godown's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment aligns with established Supreme Court law and was neither contrary nor unreasonable. The decision is reversed, and the disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Eighth Amendment and Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling determined that Godown's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment, aligning with established Supreme Court law.
Reasoning: The California Court of Appeal's ruling that Godown's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment aligns with established Supreme Court law and was neither contrary nor unreasonable.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by the relevant circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is reversed, and the disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Second-Degree Burglary Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Godown was convicted of second-degree burglary, which is considered a more serious offense compared to other passive felonies.
Reasoning: Godown was convicted of second-degree burglary, which is considered a more serious offense than passing a rubber check, described in Solem v. Helm as a notably passive felony.