Ewing v. California
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Ewing_v._California an entity of type: Thing
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Ewing v. California
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Gary Ewing v. State of California
xsd:integer
7449380
xsd:integer
1115968401
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
rdf:langString
Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Cal. Penal Code ยง 667
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Defendant convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court; conviction affirmed by California Court of Appeal; California Supreme Court declined review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, .
xsd:integer
11
xsd:integer
538
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-05
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Ewing v. California,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-05
xsd:integer
2003
rdf:langString
Gary Ewing v. State of California
rdf:langString
California's three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
rdf:langString
Ewing v. California
rdf:langString
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed. Ewing was represented in the Court by Quin Denvir. The Attorney General of California argued for the State of California. Michael Chertoff argued on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae.
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Kennedy
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
13207