Supreme Court of the United States
Ewing v. California
March 5, 2003538 U.S. 11
Summary
The Court affirmed Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft under California's three strikes law. Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, applied a narrow proportionality principle and concluded that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate in light of Ewing's serious criminal history and California's interests in incapacitation and deterrence. Justices Scalia and Thomas separately concurred in the judgment; Scalia considered proportionality review incapable of principled judicial application, while Thomas maintained that the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, defending proportionality review as both judicially manageable and constitutionally required. Justice Breyer also dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, concluding that the sentence was grossly disproportionate based on the triggering offense, actual imprisonment required, and comparative sentencing practices.
Holding
- Whether Ewing's three strikes sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.. The plurality concluded that Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft under California's three strikes law was not grossly disproportionate and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Docket 01-6978
Cited authorities
- Alaska Stat. §§ 11.46.130
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-604
- Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 775.084
- Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 708-831
- Idaho Code § 18-2407(b)(1)
- Idaho Code § 18-2408(2)(a)
- Iowa Code Ann. §§ 714.2
- Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-3701