Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Johnson v. Hickman
Citation: 184 F. App'x 666Docket: No. 04-17109
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 16, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Lonnie Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his jury conviction for possession of a controlled substance and a subsequent sentence of 25 years to life. The appeal is reviewed de novo, and the court affirms the lower court's decision. Johnson argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, but the court finds that given his extensive criminal history, including five felony convictions for robbery, the sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense, referencing precedents such as Lockyer v. Andrade and Ewing v. California. He also claims the trial court abused its discretion by not striking his prior convictions at sentencing. The court determines that Johnson's assertion of "fundamental unfairness" is unsubstantiated, and his argument relates to state sentencing law rather than federal habeas relief. Moreover, Johnson contends that his equal protection rights were violated because prosecutors in other counties had policies against applying California’s Three Strikes law to non-violent felony offenders. The court finds no evidence that Johnson was selected based on an impermissible classification, upholding the prosecutor's discretion. Lastly, Johnson argues that his right to a fair trial was infringed when the trial court limited the evidence he could present regarding his prior felony convictions. The court concludes that this limitation did not render the trial fundamentally unfair since the additional convictions were deemed irrelevant. The court denies Johnson's motion to amend his opening brief to include uncertified issues and affirms the lower court's judgment. The ruling is designated not for publication and is restricted in citation as per the local rules.