Term: 2002
Docket: 01-1127
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General Of California v. Leandro Andrade
- Pro
01-1127 LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA v. ANDRADE Ruling below: CA 9, 270 F.3d 743. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether California's three-strikes law, providing for a twenty-five year-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 this Court's existing jurisprudence concerning the Eighth Amendment and proportionality in noncapital 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. § 2254(d)(I)? 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, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 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? CERT. GRANTED: 4/1/02 Set for oral argument in tandem with No. 01-6978, Ewing v. California.
In the case of Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Leandro Andrade (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 50-year-to-life sentence for Leandro Andrade under California's three-strikes law for stealing $153 worth of videotapes from two stores. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that such a sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This was despite arguments made by Andrade’s defense team that his nonviolent crimes didn't warrant such severe punishment, especially considering his previous convictions were also minor offenses related to petty theft and drug use rather than violent crime or serious felonies. However, Justice O'Connor writing for the majority held that it was not within their purview to review sentences imposed by state courts unless they are grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
In the dissenting opinion for Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Leandro Andrade, Justice Souter argued that Andrade's sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crimes and thus violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He pointed out that Andrade had been sentenced to 50 years in prison without parole for stealing $153 worth of videotapes from K-Mart stores - a crime which would have resulted in a maximum sentence of six months under California law if it weren't for the state's three-strikes rule. The majority upheld this sentencing by comparing it with other cases involving repeat offenders; however, Souter contended that these comparisons were flawed because they did not take into account the nature or severity of past offenses. In his view, such harsh sentences should be reserved only for serious or violent crimes rather than minor thefts.
