From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaCroix v. Harris

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
73 F. App'x 260 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


73 Fed.Appx. 260 (9th Cir. 2003) Robert Andrew LACROIX, Petitioner--Appellee, v. Gerald HARRIS, Warden; et al., Respondents--Appellants. No. 02-56729. D.C. No. CV-99-03300-CAS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 15, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The California Attorney General appeals the district court's granting in part Robert Andrew LaCroix's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus petition challenging his 25-years-to-life three-strikes sentence for petty theft with a prior. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's decision to grant or deny a state prisoner's petition for habeas relief. See Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse.

Appellant's contention that the district court erred by granting LaCroix's habeas petition because his sentence of 25-years-to-life violated the Eighth Amendment is meritorious. The district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court's affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). In accordance with Supreme Court law, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

REVERSED.


Summaries of

LaCroix v. Harris

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
73 F. App'x 260 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

LaCroix v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:Robert Andrew LACROIX, Petitioner--Appellee, v. Gerald HARRIS, Warden; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 15, 2003

Citations

73 F. App'x 260 (9th Cir. 2003)