Aguilar v. Ayers

Ninth Circuit

Aguilar v. Ayers

69 F. App'x 390

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 2003

DocketNo. 01-55763; D.C. No. CV-00-00957-JNK

StatusPublished

This text of 69 F. App'x 390 (Aguilar v. Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aguilar v. Ayers, 69 F. App'x 390 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Constantino Miguel Aguilar appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his three-strikes sentence for unlawfully driving a vehicle, receiving stolen property, and possessing a hypodermic needle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Aguilar’s contention that his sentence of 25-years-to-life plus one year is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is unpersuasive in light of Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S.-,-- -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -,---, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Aguilar’s petition. Andrade, — U.S. at-, 123 S.Ct. at 1175.¹

AFFIRMED.²,³

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Constantino Miguel Aguilar appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his three-strikes sentence for unlawfully driving a vehicle, receiving stolen property, and possessing a hypodermic needle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Aguilar’s contention that his sentence of 25-years-to-life plus one year is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is unpersuasive in light of Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S.-,-- -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -,---, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Aguilar’s petition. Andrade, — U.S. at-, 123 S.Ct. at 1175.¹

AFFIRMED.²,³

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F. App'x 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilar-v-ayers-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack