Turner v. Candelaria

Ninth Circuit

Turner v. Candelaria

64 F. App'x 647

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2003

DocketNo. 00-15606

StatusPublished

This text of 64 F. App'x 647 (Turner v. Candelaria) 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

Turner v. Candelaria, 64 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

**

Fredrick D. Turner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Turner challenges his California conviction and 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Turner contends that his 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We cannot agree.

Under California’s three-strikes law, the state court’s refusal to reduce Turner’s conviction to a misdemeanor was within its discretion. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003). Because Turner has at least two prior violent or serious felonies, he received a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 667(e)(2)(A).¹ The State of California [648]*648is entitled to punish recidivists more harshly than first-time offenders. See Ewing, 123 S.Ct. at 1190. Although Turner’s sentence is severe, we cannot say that it violates the Eighth Amendment. See Id. at 1189-90.

Because the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the district court properly denied Turner’s § 2254 petition. See Lockyer v. Andrade, —U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (upholding state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft).

AFFIRMED.²

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Fredrick D. Turner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Turner challenges his California conviction and 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Turner contends that his 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We cannot agree.

Under California’s three-strikes law, the state court’s refusal to reduce Turner’s conviction to a misdemeanor was within its discretion. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003). Because Turner has at least two prior violent or serious felonies, he received a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 667(e)(2)(A).¹ The State of California [648]*648is entitled to punish recidivists more harshly than first-time offenders. See Ewing, 123 S.Ct. at 1190. Although Turner’s sentence is severe, we cannot say that it violates the Eighth Amendment. See Id. at 1189-90.

Because the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the district court properly denied Turner’s § 2254 petition. See Lockyer v. Andrade, —U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (upholding state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft).

AFFIRMED.²

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F. App'x 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-candelaria-ca9-2003.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack