Ewing v. California
155 L. Ed. 2d 108 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003
Facts
Petitioner Gary Ewing, while on parole from a 9-year prison term, stole three golf clubs, valued at $399 each, from the pro shop of the El Segundo Golf Course on March 12, 2000. A shop employee observed Ewing limp out with the clubs concealed and called the police, who apprehended him in the parking lot. Ewing had an extensive criminal history, including convictions for theft, grand theft auto, petty theft, battery, burglary, drug paraphernalia possession, and firearm possession. In October and November 1993, he committed three residential burglaries and one robbery at an apartment complex, for which he was sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison. He was paroled in 1999, and only 10 months later, committed the golf club theft.
Procedural history
Ewing was charged with felony grand theft, and the prosecutor alleged four prior serious or violent felonies. The trial court denied Ewing's requests to reduce the grand theft to a misdemeanor or dismiss prior felony allegations, sentencing him to 25 years to life under the three strikes law. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on Rummel v. Estelle and rejecting Ewing’s Eighth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court of California denied review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the State of California from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under the State’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law for grand theft?
Holding
No, the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit California from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under its three strikes law.
Rule
The Eighth Amendment contains a narrow proportionality principle that applies to noncapital sentences, but successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences are exceedingly rare. Federal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment. A life sentence under a recidivism statute, especially with the possibility of parole, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, even for relatively minor triggering offenses, as established in Rummel v. Estelle. While Solem v. Helm found a life sentence without parole for a nonviolent felony unconstitutional, it distinguished Rummel based on parole eligibility and did not overrule it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.