Lockyer v. Andrade
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lockyer_v._Andrade an entity of type: Thing
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Relying on the reasoning of Ewing and Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court ruled that because no "clearly established" law held that a three-strikes sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, the 50-years-to-life sentence imposed in this case was not cruel and unusual punishment.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Lockyer v. Andrade
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, v. Leandro Andrade
xsd:integer
7449453
xsd:integer
1071766453
rdf:langString
Souter
rdf:langString
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Cal. Penal Code § 667
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
63
xsd:integer
538
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-05
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Lockyer v. Andrade,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-05
xsd:integer
2003
rdf:langString
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, v. Leandro Andrade
rdf:langString
It is clearly established federal law that sentence imposed under California's three strikes law is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
rdf:langString
Lockyer v. Andrade
rdf:langString
O'Connor
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Relying on the reasoning of Ewing and Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court ruled that because no "clearly established" law held that a three-strikes sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, the 50-years-to-life sentence imposed in this case was not cruel and unusual punishment.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10151