Ewing v. California — Kennedy, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Kennedy's concurrence endorses affirmance of Ewing's 25-years-to-life sentence, reasoning that proportionality review is narrow, deferential to legislative sentencing judgments, and permits enhanced punishment based on recidivism and public-safety goals. The concurrence concludes that the sentence is not grossly disproportionate because it was imposed for felony grand theft against a defendant with a serious and extensive criminal record. Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens, dissenting, would find the sentence grossly disproportionate, while Justices Scalia and Thomas, concurring in the judgment, would reject or decline to apply a proportionality principle.