Romero v. Galaza

Ninth Circuit

Romero v. Galaza

61 F. App'x 492

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2003

DocketNo. 02-55358; D.C. No. CV-00-01535-IEG

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F. App'x 492 (Romero v. Galaza) 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

Romero v. Galaza, 61 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Rodney Romero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his “three strikes” sentence for receiving stolen property in violation of California Penal Code § 496(a) as cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Romero contends his sentence under California’s “three strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the California state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in upholding Romero’s sentence. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 [493]*493S.Ct. 1179, 1190, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (acknowledging broad discretion possessed by legislatures and holding that three-strikes sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft was not grossly disproportionate); Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175, 144 L.Ed.2d 155 (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 clearly established federal law). The district court therefore properly denied Romero’s petition. See Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1174.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Rodney Romero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his “three strikes” sentence for receiving stolen property in violation of California Penal Code § 496(a) as cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Romero contends his sentence under California’s “three strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the California state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in upholding Romero’s sentence. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 [493]*493S.Ct. 1179, 1190, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (acknowledging broad discretion possessed by legislatures and holding that three-strikes sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft was not grossly disproportionate); Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175, 144 L.Ed.2d 155 (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 clearly established federal law). The district court therefore properly denied Romero’s petition. See Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1174.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. App'x 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-galaza-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack