Lockyer v. Andrade
Andrade was convicted on two counts of petty theft for stealing video tapes. Andrade’s petty thefts were enhanced from misdemeanors to felonies because of prior offenses, and therefore counted as third and fourth strikes under California’s ”three strikes” law. Andrade was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for fifty years. Andrade unsuccessfully appealed his sentence in state court and then sought federal habeas relief. The district court denied relief. The court of appeals reversed, holding in relevant part that (1) Andrade’s sentence was so grossly disproportionate to his crime that, as applied, the ”three strikes” law violated the Eighth Amendment, and (2) the California Court of Appeals disregarded the US Supreme Court’s decision in Solem v. Helm in denying relief to Andrade, resulting in an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law and entitling Andrade to habeas relief.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether California's three-strikes law, providing for a twenty-five years to life prison term for a third strike conviction, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment when applied to a defendant whose third strike conviction is for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction.
2. Whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s existing jurisprudence concerning the Eighth Amendment and proportionality in non-capital cases, the judgment of the California Court of Appeal,
holding Andrade's consecutive twenty-five years to life sentences for convictions on two counts of petty theft with a prior, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
as determined by this Court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d)(1).
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit or the Fourth Circuit is correct, concerning the necessity for a habeas court analyzing a claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, to
first decide if the state court's determination was erroneous before deciding whether the determination was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law
as determined by this Court.
