Williams v. Candelaria, 112206 FED09, 06-55164
|Party Name:||LARRY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RANDOLPH CANDELARIA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: HALL, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 22, 2006|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2006[**] Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-02-00473-GHK
California state prisoner Larry Williams (Williams) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Williams challenges his Three Strikes sentence of 25-years-to-life imprisonment for receiving stolen property, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendments proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. At sentencing, Williams admitted his prior prison terms and that his prior burglary convictions constituted strikes within the meaning of Californias Three Strikes law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.
Williamss Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence fails because the only relevant clearly established law amenable to the contrary to or unreasonable application of framework is the gross disproportionality principle, the precise contours of which are unclear, applicable only in the exceedingly rare and extreme case. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1982), provides little support for Williamss Eighth Amendment claim because Williams is eligible for parole in twenty-five years and his sentence is therefore considerably less severe than the one invalidated in Solem . Taylor v. Lewis, 460 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006).
Similarly, Williamss reliance on Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2004), is misplaced. First, unlike the state court in Ramirez, the state court of appeal did not make an important factual error or omit critical objective factors in its examination of Williamss criminal history. See id. at 774-75. Second, Ramirez s entire criminal history consisted solely of two second-degree robbery convictions, obtained through a single guilty plea and resulting in a one-year jail sentence (with only six months served). Id . at 768...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP