Number: RS21346
Title: Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Three Strikes in the Supreme Court-Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade
Authors: Charles Doyle, American Law Division 
Abstract: The Eighth Amendments cruel and unusual punishments clause forbids grossly disproportionate sentences. The question of how to determine whether a particular term of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate under the facts of a particular case has divided the Court for years. The division was evident in the Courts recent treatment of the issue in two cases arising under the California Three Strikes law, Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166 (2003), and Ewing v. California, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (2003). In Andrade, the Court conceded that its precedents were unclear. As a consequent, federal courts could not conduct habeas corpus review of a state court decision which had upheld application of the three strikes law against an Eighth Amendment challenge. In Ewing, the state prevailed when three justices found no disproportionality in the application of the California scheme and were joined by two Justices who found proportionality unworkable as a basis upon which to invalidate punishment in the form of imprisonment for a crime.
Pages: 5
Date: March 24, 2003