Langster v. Runnels

Ninth Circuit

Langster v. Runnels

238 F. App'x 274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2007

DocketNo. 05-16870

StatusPublished

This text of 238 F. App'x 274 (Langster v. Runnels) 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

Langster v. Runnels, 238 F. App'x 274 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

John A. Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.

(1) Given the standards that we must follow,¹ we cannot hold that the California courts improperly rejected Langster’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to permit a rational juror to find him guilty² of felony false imprisonment by the use of menace as that crime is defined in California.³

(2) Nor can we say that Langster’s sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law⁴ violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Given the confluence of Langster’s extensive and serious criminal history and the seriousness of the offense in question here, we cannot say that this is one of those exceedingly rare instances where the sentence has run afoul of Eighth Amendment law as clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72-77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28-31, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1138, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 438-40 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

John A. Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.

(1) Given the standards that we must follow,¹ we cannot hold that the California courts improperly rejected Langster’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to permit a rational juror to find him guilty² of felony false imprisonment by the use of menace as that crime is defined in California.³

(2) Nor can we say that Langster’s sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law⁴ violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Given the confluence of Langster’s extensive and serious criminal history and the seriousness of the offense in question here, we cannot say that this is one of those exceedingly rare instances where the sentence has run afoul of Eighth Amendment law as clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72-77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28-31, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1138, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 438-40 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langster-v-runnels-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack