Ewing v. California | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 5, 2002 Decided March 5, 2003 | |
Full case name | Gary Ewing v. State of California |
Docket no. | 01-6978 |
Citations | 538 U.S. 11 (more) 123 S. Ct. 1179; 155 L. Ed. 2d 108; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1952 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court; conviction affirmed by California Court of Appeal; California Supreme Court declined review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, 535 U.S. 969 (2002). |
Holding | |
California's three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy |
Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment) |
Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Cal. Penal Code § 667 |
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.[1] As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan,[2] the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade,[3] the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
Ewing was represented in the Court by Quin Denvir. The Attorney General of California argued for the State of California. Michael Chertoff argued on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search