Blanton v. Terhune
This text of 68 F. App'x 119 (Blanton v. Terhune) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Lola Wanda Blanton appeals pro se the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging her three-strikes sentence for possession of methamphetamine with three prior serious felony convictions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.
Blanton’s contention that her sentence of 25-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by 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 a 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 Blanton’s petition. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1175.
AFFIRMED.1
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 F. App'x 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanton-v-terhune-ca9-2003.