On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments on whether or not California's use of the three strikes sentencing law renders life sentences for minor theft crimes cruel and unusual punishment. The court will decide this issue sometime in the first half of next year.
In November of 2001, Leandro Andrade, a California prisoner convicted of two counts of petty theft for stealing $153 worth of videotapes, had his sentence of 50 years to life overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held such a sentence for petty theft offenses was a "grossly disproportionate" sentence and violated the 8th Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment. (Andrade v Attorney General (9th Circuit 2001) 270 F.3d 743, cert. granted)
Gary Ewing, also a California prisoner and HIV positive, received a sentence of 25 years to life for a single count of grand theft for stealing three gold clubs valued at $399 a piece. After the California Supreme Court upheld Ewing's sentence, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari directly to the nation's highest court.
On April 1, 2002, the Supreme Court agreed to hear in tandem UNDERLINE Lockyer v. Andrade END (01-1128) and UNDERLINE Ewing v. California END (01-6978).
Since Andrade had absolutely no violence in his background and one of Ewing's prior convictions includes brandishing a knife, there has been much speculation as to why the high court picked these two petitioners. Because of the differences in the instant offenses – i.e. petty theft and grand theft, as well as the difference in their criminal records – the court can make a number of determinations and distinctions on how and on whom California can apply the three strikes.
California's three strikes came into being when Richard Allen Davis, a violent recidivist, abducted and murdered twelve year old Polly Klaas in late 1993. The public was outraged and in a whirlwind three strikes became law in March of 1994.
While the proposition of permanent removal from society for three violent acts was well- received and embraced by a large majority of California's voters in 1994, the law has proven to cast a much wider net than how it was promoted to the public at the height of their outrage. From its inception, three strikes recipients have bombarded the judiciary with a wide range of petitions and appeals because the third strike can be "any felony."
There are well over 7,000 prison inmates within the California Department of Corrections who have received a sentence of at least twenty-five years to life due to the three strikes sentencing law. Over eight years into this heavy-handed practice and the numbers tell a tale of wholesale incapacitation of both violent and nonviolent offender alike. The range of offenses to come under the umbrella of "any felony" is very wide, with 4,000 men and women, well over half of the total, given life sentences for nonviolent crimes.
In the present matter, the Supreme Court has to conduct a three-pronged proportionality analysis to determine whether or not the petitioners, Andrade and Ewing, have received a grossly disproportionate sentence. This test is articulated by the Supreme Court in UNDERLINE Solem v. Helms END (1983) 463 U.S. 277.
Under Solem, a court is first to compare the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the punishment. The second prong consists of a comparison of punishments in the same jurisdiction; and the third prong involves a comparison of punishments for similar offenses in other jurisdictions.
At the state level, forty states have recidivist statutes. Twenty-six states and federal government have implemented a form of three strikes. Yet, despite the trend towards harsher punishments, California is the only state to use three strikes frequently. Nationally, California is responsible for 92 percent to 94 percent of all three strikes sentences – and the only state to use this type of sentencing scheme to send minor offenders to prison for life.
MIM adds: Join us in fighting the Three Strikes law in California. Print up a copy of our petition (found here: xxxx) and gather signatures. Create flyers with this article. Or contact us to organize educational events in your town.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |