Ewing v. California
538 U.S. 11 (2003)
Rule of Law:
A sentence of 25 years to life in prison imposed on a recidivist felon under a state's 'three strikes' law is not grossly disproportionate and does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, even when the triggering offense is a non-violent felony.
Facts:
- Gary Ewing had an extensive criminal history beginning in 1984, including numerous misdemeanor and felony convictions.
- In October and November 1993, Ewing committed three residential burglaries and one robbery at an apartment complex, for which he was convicted.
- These prior convictions for burglary and robbery qualified as 'serious or violent' felonies under California law.
- After serving part of a nine-year sentence for these crimes, Ewing was released on parole in 1999.
- On March 12, 2000, while on parole, Ewing stole three golf clubs, each priced at $399, from a pro shop by concealing them in his pants leg.
- The total value of the stolen merchandise was approximately $1,200, which constituted felony grand theft under California law.
- Ewing was apprehended by police in the golf course parking lot shortly after the theft.
Procedural Posture:
- Prosecutors charged Gary Ewing in a California state trial court with one count of felony grand theft.
- The prosecution also alleged that Ewing had four prior 'serious or violent' felony convictions, making him eligible for sentencing under the 'three strikes' law.
- At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Ewing's requests to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor and to dismiss the prior strike allegations.
- The trial court sentenced Ewing to a prison term of 25 years to life.
- Ewing (as appellant) appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing his sentence was unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's sentence.
- Ewing (as petitioner) filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California, which was denied.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Ewing's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sentence of 25 years to life, imposed under California's 'three strikes' law for a felony grand theft conviction, violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments when the defendant has a history of serious or violent felony convictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. A sentence of 25 years to life under California's three strikes law for felony grand theft is not grossly disproportionate and does not violate the Eighth Amendment when considered in light of the defendant's long history of serious or violent felony recidivism. The Eighth Amendment contains only a narrow proportionality principle, and courts must grant substantial deference to the policy choices of state legislatures. California's three strikes law reflects a rational legislative judgment that habitual criminals who have not been deterred by lesser punishments must be incapacitated to protect public safety. In weighing the gravity of the offense, the court must consider not only the triggering felony but also the defendant's entire criminal history. Given Ewing's long and serious record, his sentence is justified by the State's legitimate penological interests in incapacitation and deterrence and is not one of the 'rare' cases where an inference of gross disproportionality arises.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The judgment should be affirmed because the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment, not guaranteeing proportionality in sentencing. Applying a proportionality principle is not a legal analysis but an evaluation of policy, especially when goals like incapacitation and deterrence are considered alongside retribution. Because the proportionality test from Solem v. Helm is not intelligently applicable, the sentence should stand without such review.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The judgment should be affirmed because the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle whatsoever. Therefore, the test from Solem v. Helm is inapplicable, and the sentence is constitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The sentence imposed in this case is both cruel and unusual because it is grossly disproportionate. Faithful to the Eighth Amendment's text prohibiting 'excessive' sanctions, proportionality review is required for all forms of punishment, including imprisonment. Judges are capable of and constitutionally required to exercise their judgment to determine the outer limits of sentencing authority, and this sentence falls outside those constitutional bounds.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime. A comparative analysis shows that Ewing's sentence is significantly more severe than what he would have received for the same conduct in almost any other jurisdiction or in California before the three strikes law. The triggering offense—stealing three golf clubs—is among the less serious felonies, while the punishment of 25 years to life is among the most severe. The state's administrative line-drawing for what constitutes a felony 'wobbler' does not provide a sufficient criminal justice justification for a sentence that is, outside of this specific statutory context, 'virtually unique in its harshness.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforced the principle of judicial deference to legislative sentencing schemes, particularly those targeting recidivism. It narrowed the practical application of the Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle for noncapital sentences, making successful challenges exceedingly difficult. The Court's focus on the defendant's entire criminal history, rather than just the triggering offense, provides states with broad authority to impose lengthy sentences under habitual offender laws. The ruling solidified that as long as a state has a rational penological goal, such as incapacitation of repeat offenders, a severe sentence for a relatively minor felony will likely withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Ewing v. California (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"