Ewing v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawEighth AmendmentSentencingRecidivist statutesThree Strikes lawgross disproportionalityrecidivismhabitual offender

Facts

While on parole from a prior prison term, Gary Ewing stole three golf clubs worth about $1,200 from a golf course pro shop and was convicted of felony grand theft. He had previously been convicted of four serious or violent felonies arising from three residential burglaries and a robbery, along with numerous other misdemeanor and felony offenses. At sentencing, Ewing asked the trial court to reduce the grand theft conviction, a California "wobbler," to a misdemeanor or to dismiss some prior strike allegations, but the court declined. Because he had at least two prior serious or violent felony convictions, California sentenced him under its three strikes law to 25 years to life.

Issue

Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments bar California from imposing a sentence of 25 years to life under its three strikes law on a repeat offender convicted of felony grand theft?

Rule

The Eighth Amendment contains a narrow proportionality principle applicable to noncapital sentences. It does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence, but forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime; in assessing a recidivist sentence, courts consider not only the current felony but also the offender's long history of felony recidivism, while giving substantial deference to legislative judgments about punishment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Damon Ruiz was convicted of felony theft for taking construction tools worth $1,450 from a supply yard. Because he had two prior serious felony convictions for armed robbery and residential burglary, Arizona sentenced him under a repeat-offender statute to 25 years to life with parole eligibility after 25 years.

Damon argues that the sentence is cruel and unusual because the latest offense was only a nonviolent property crime. Under the controlling Eighth Amendment rule, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority applied a narrow proportionality principle to noncapital sentences: the Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate. In the recidivist setting, the gravity inquiry includes both the current felony and the offender's history of serious felony recidivism. The opinion also stressed substantial deference to legislative judgments choosing incapacitation and deterrence for habitual offenders. A long sentence for a nonviolent triggering felony is not automatically invalid.