lockyer
attorney
general
california
andrade
argued
november
decided
march
california
charged
respondent
andrade
two
felony
counts
petty
theft
prior
conviction
stole
approximately
worth
videotapes
two
different
stores
california
three
strikes
law
felony
constitute
third
strike
subjecting
defendant
prison
term
years
life
jury
found
andrade
guilty
found
three
prior
convictions
qualified
serious
violent
felonies
three
strikes
regime
petty
theft
convictions
thus
triggered
separate
application
three
strikes
law
judge
sentenced
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
affirming
california
appeal
rejected
claim
sentence
violated
constitutional
prohibition
cruel
unusual
punishment
found
solem
helm
proportionality
analysis
questionable
light
harmelin
michigan
compared
facts
andrade
case
rummel
estelle
rejected
claim
life
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
felonies
formed
predicate
sentence
concluded
andrade
sentence
disproportionate
california
denied
discretionary
review
federal
district
denied
andrade
subsequent
habeas
petition
ninth
circuit
granted
certificate
appealability
reversed
reviewing
case
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
latter
held
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
occurs
clear
error
concluded
solem
rummel
remain
good
law
instructive
applying
harmelin
found
california
appeal
disregard
solem
resulted
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
irreconcilable
solem
thus
constituting
clear
error
held
ninth
circuit
erred
ruling
california
appeal
decision
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
within
meaning
pp
aedpa
require
federal
habeas
adopt
one
methodology
deciding
question
matters
whether
state
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
case
reach
question
whether
state
erred
focuses
solely
whether
habeas
relief
barred
pp
must
first
decide
constitutes
clearly
established
law
andrade
claims
rummel
solem
harmelin
clearly
establish
principle
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
violated
eighth
amendment
clearly
established
federal
law
governing
legal
principle
principles
set
forth
time
state
renders
decision
difficulty
andrade
position
established
clear
consistent
path
courts
follow
determining
whether
particular
sentence
term
years
violate
eighth
amendment
indeed
clearly
established
law
emerging
jurisprudence
area
gross
disproportionality
principle
applies
sentences
cases
lack
clarity
regarding
factors
may
indicate
gross
disproportionality
principle
precise
contours
unclear
applicable
exceedingly
rare
extreme
case
harmelin
supra
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
pp
california
appeal
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
gross
disproportionality
principle
first
decision
contrary
clearly
established
precedent
state
applied
rule
contradicts
governing
law
set
forth
cases
confronts
facts
materially
indistinguishable
decision
nevertheless
arrives
different
result
williams
taylor
andrade
sentence
implicates
factors
relevant
rummel
solem
harmelin
solem
specifically
stated
overrule
rummel
contrary
clearly
established
law
state
turn
rummel
deciding
whether
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
see
harmelin
supra
kennedy
also
facts
fall
solem
rummel
materially
indistinguishable
either
thus
state
confront
materially
indistinguishable
facts
yet
arrive
different
result
second
unreasonable
application
clause
federal
habeas
may
grant
writ
state
identifies
correct
governing
legal
principle
unreasonably
applies
facts
prisoner
case
williams
taylor
stevens
dissenting
denial
certiorari
pp
reversed
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
ginsburg
breyer
joined
bill
lockyer
attorney
general
fornia
petitioner
leandro
andrade
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
march
justice
delivered
opinion
case
raises
issue
whether
appeals
ninth
circuit
erred
ruling
california
appeal
decision
affirming
leandro
andrade
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
prison
third
strike
conviction
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
within
meaning
november
leandro
andrade
stole
five
videotapes
worth
kmart
store
ontario
california
security
personnel
detained
andrade
leaving
store
november
andrade
entered
different
kmart
store
montclair
california
placed
four
videotapes
worth
rear
waistband
pants
security
guards
apprehended
andrade
exiting
premises
police
subsequently
arrested
andrade
crimes
two
incidents
andrade
first
encounters
law
enforcement
according
state
probation
officer
presentence
report
andrade
state
federal
prison
since
january
convicted
misdemeanor
theft
offense
sentenced
days
jail
months
probation
andrade
arrested
november
multiple
counts
residential
burglary
pleaded
guilty
least
three
counts
april
following
year
sentenced
months
prison
andrade
convicted
federal
ransportation
arijuana
app
sentenced
eight
years
federal
prison
convicted
state
misdemeanor
petty
theft
offense
ordered
serve
days
jail
september
andrade
convicted
federal
felony
ransportation
arijuana
sentenced
days
federal
prison
andrade
arrested
state
parole
violation
escape
federal
prison
paroled
state
penitentiary
system
state
probation
officer
interviewed
andrade
arrest
case
presentence
report
notes
defendant
admitted
committing
offense
defendant
stated
went
store
steal
videos
took
four
sell
buy
heroin
heroin
addict
since
says
gets
jail
prison
always
something
stupid
admits
addiction
controls
life
steals
habit
misdemeanor
conviction
state
charged
andrade
case
two
counts
petty
theft
prior
conviction
violation
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
california
law
petty
theft
prior
conviction
wobbler
offense
punishable
either
misdemeanor
felony
ibid
cf
ewing
california
ante
slip
plurality
opinion
decision
prosecute
petty
theft
prior
conviction
misdemeanor
felony
discretion
prosecutor
see
ante
slip
trial
also
discretion
reduce
charge
misdemeanor
time
sentencing
see
people
superior
los
angeles
cty
ex
rel
alvarez
cal
see
also
ewing
california
ante
slip
california
three
strikes
law
felony
constitute
third
strike
thus
subject
defendant
term
years
life
prison
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
see
also
ewing
california
ante
slip
case
prosecutor
decided
charge
two
counts
theft
felonies
rather
misdemeanors
trial
denied
andrade
motion
reduce
offenses
misdemeanors
jury
verdict
state
habeas
proceedings
jury
found
andrade
guilty
two
counts
petty
theft
prior
conviction
according
california
law
jury
must
also
find
defendant
convicted
least
two
serious
violent
felonies
serve
qualifying
offenses
three
strikes
regime
case
jury
made
special
finding
andrade
convicted
three
counts
residential
burglary
conviction
residential
burglary
qualifies
serious
violent
felony
purposes
three
strikes
law
cal
penal
code
ann
west
see
also
ewing
california
ante
slip
consequence
andrade
convictions
theft
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
triggered
separate
application
three
strikes
law
pursuant
california
law
judge
sentenced
andrade
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
prison
see
state
stated
oral
argument
decision
announced
california
people
garcia
cal
decision
postdates
conviction
sentence
remains
available
andrade
file
another
state
habeas
corpus
petition
arguing
serve
one
term
years
life
prison
sentencing
courts
right
dismiss
strikes
basis
tr
oral
arg
direct
appeal
california
appeal
affirmed
andrade
sentence
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
prison
rejected
andrade
claim
sentence
violates
constitutional
prohibition
cruel
unusual
punishment
stated
proportionality
analysis
solem
helm
questionable
light
harmelin
michigan
app
pet
cert
applied
decision
rummel
estelle
rejected
defendant
claim
life
sentence
disproportionate
three
felonies
formed
predicate
sentence
california
appeal
examined
andrade
claim
light
facts
rummel
comparing
andrade
crimes
criminal
history
defendant
rummel
say
sentence
years
life
issue
case
disproportionate
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
constitution
app
pet
cert
california
denied
discretionary
review
andrade
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
federal
district
district
denied
petition
ninth
circuit
granted
andrade
certificate
appealability
claim
sentence
violated
eighth
amendment
subsequently
reversed
judgment
district
ninth
circuit
first
noted
reviewing
andrade
petition
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
stat
applying
precedent
ninth
circuit
held
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
occurs
independent
review
legal
question
us
firm
conviction
one
answer
one
rejected
state
correct
application
federal
law
state
adopted
erroneous
words
clear
error
occurred
alteration
original
quoting
van
tran
lindsey
reviewed
three
recent
major
precedents
area
rummel
estelle
supra
solem
helm
supra
harmelin
michigan
supra
ninth
circuit
follow
ed
test
prescribed
justice
kennedy
harmelin
concluding
rummel
solem
remain
good
law
instructive
harmelin
application
noted
california
appeal
compared
facts
andrade
case
facts
rummel
solem
ninth
circuit
concluded
grant
writ
habeas
corpus
state
disregard
solem
results
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
irreconcilable
solem
thus
constituting
clear
error
judge
sneed
dissented
relevant
part
wrote
sentence
imposed
case
one
rare
terms
imprisonment
prohibited
eighth
amendment
proscription
cruel
unusual
punishment
quoting
harmelin
michigan
supra
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
view
state
decision
upholding
andrade
sentence
thus
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
andrade
argument
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
stealing
approximately
videotapes
grossly
disproportionate
violation
eighth
amendment
andrade
similarly
maintains
state
decision
affirming
sentence
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
aedpa
circumscribes
federal
habeas
review
decision
section
provides
application
writ
habeas
corpus
behalf
person
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
shall
granted
respect
claim
adjudicated
merits
state
proceedings
unless
adjudication
claim
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
ninth
circuit
requires
federal
habeas
courts
review
state
decision
de
novo
applying
aedpa
standard
review
see
van
tran
lindsey
supra
clark
murphy
disagree
approach
aedpa
require
federal
habeas
adopt
one
methodology
deciding
question
matters
whether
state
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
see
weeks
angelone
case
reach
question
whether
state
erred
instead
focus
solely
whether
forecloses
habeas
relief
andrade
eighth
amendment
claim
iii
threshold
matter
first
decide
constitutes
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
andrade
relies
upon
series
precedents
rummel
estelle
solem
helm
harmelin
michigan
claims
clearly
establish
principle
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
violates
eighth
amendment
section
clearly
established
phrase
refers
holdings
opposed
dicta
decisions
time
relevant
decision
williams
taylor
words
clearly
established
federal
law
governing
legal
principle
principles
set
forth
time
state
renders
decision
see
bell
cone
situations
task
determining
clearly
established
straightforward
difficulty
andrade
position
however
precedents
area
model
clarity
see
harmelin
michigan
opinion
scalia
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
indeed
determining
whether
particular
sentence
term
years
violate
eighth
amendment
established
clear
consistent
path
courts
follow
see
ewing
california
ante
slip
thicket
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
one
governing
legal
principle
emerges
clearly
established
gross
disproportionality
principle
applicable
sentences
terms
years
cases
exhibit
lack
clarity
regarding
factors
may
indicate
gross
disproportionality
solem
case
upon
andrade
relies
heavily
stated
clear
sentence
generally
severe
sentence
cases
difficult
decide
former
violates
eighth
amendment
latter
omitted
harmelin
justice
kennedy
justice
scalia
repeatedly
emphasized
lack
clarity
solem
scarcely
expression
clear
constitutional
law
opinion
scalia
adher
ing
narrow
proportionality
principle
proportionality
decisions
clear
consistent
respects
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
lack
clear
objective
standards
distinguish
sentences
different
terms
years
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
precise
contours
proportionality
principle
unclear
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
thus
case
relevant
clearly
established
law
amenable
contrary
unreasonable
application
framework
gross
disproportionality
principle
precise
contours
unclear
applicable
exceedingly
rare
extreme
case
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
solem
helm
supra
rummel
estelle
supra
iv
final
question
whether
california
appeal
decision
affirming
andrade
sentence
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
gross
disproportionality
principle
first
state
decision
contrary
clearly
established
precedent
state
applies
rule
contradicts
governing
law
set
forth
cases
state
confronts
set
facts
materially
indistinguishable
decision
nevertheless
arrives
result
different
precedent
williams
taylor
supra
see
also
bell
cone
supra
terms
length
sentence
availability
parole
severity
underlying
offense
impact
recidivism
andrade
sentence
implicates
factors
relevant
rummel
solem
harmelin
solem
specifically
stated
overrule
rummel
contrary
clearly
established
law
california
appeal
turn
rummel
deciding
whether
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
see
harmelin
supra
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
solem
supra
indeed
harmelin
allows
state
reasonably
rely
rummel
determining
whether
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
california
appeal
decision
therefore
contrary
governing
legal
principles
set
forth
cases
andrade
sentence
also
materially
indistinguishable
facts
solem
facts
fall
facts
rummel
facts
solem
solem
involved
sentence
life
prison
without
possibility
parole
defendant
rummel
sentenced
life
prison
possibility
parole
andrade
retains
possibility
parole
solem
acknowledged
rummel
apply
similar
factual
situation
case
resembles
degree
rummel
solem
materially
indistinguishable
either
cf
ewing
california
ante
slip
breyer
dissenting
recognizing
twilight
zone
solem
rummel
consequently
state
confron
set
facts
materially
indistinguishable
decision
nevertheless
arriv
result
different
precedent
williams
taylor
second
nder
application
clause
federal
habeas
may
grant
writ
state
identifies
correct
governing
legal
principle
decisions
unreasonably
applies
principle
facts
prisoner
case
unreasonable
application
clause
requires
state
decision
incorrect
erroneous
state
application
clearly
established
law
must
objectively
unreasonable
ninth
circuit
made
initial
error
unreasonable
application
analysis
van
tran
lindsey
ninth
circuit
defined
objectively
unreasonable
mean
clear
error
two
standards
however
gloss
clear
error
fails
give
proper
deference
state
courts
conflating
error
even
clear
error
unreasonableness
see
williams
taylor
supra
bell
cone
enough
federal
habeas
independent
review
legal
question
left
state
quoting
van
tran
lindsey
supra
held
precisely
opposite
application
clause
federal
habeas
may
issue
writ
simply
concludes
independent
judgment
relevant
decision
applied
clearly
established
federal
law
erroneously
incorrectly
williams
taylor
rather
application
must
objectively
unreasonable
bell
cone
supra
woodford
visciotti
per
curiam
slip
section
permits
federal
grant
habeas
relief
based
application
governing
legal
principle
set
facts
different
case
principle
announced
see
williams
taylor
supra
noting
unreasonable
application
precedent
state
identifies
correct
governing
legal
rule
cases
unreasonably
applies
facts
particular
state
prisoner
case
however
governing
legal
principle
gives
legislatures
broad
discretion
fashion
sentence
fits
within
scope
proportionality
principle
precise
contours
unclear
harmelin
michigan
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
objectively
unreasonable
california
appeal
conclude
contours
permitted
affirmance
andrade
sentence
indeed
since
harmelin
several
members
expressed
uncertainty
regarding
application
proportionality
principle
california
three
strikes
law
riggs
california
stevens
joined
souter
ginsburg
respecting
denial
certiorari
uncertainty
cases
dealing
punishment
recidivists
apply
see
also
thus
unclear
defendant
criminal
record
beyond
requisite
two
prior
affects
constitutionality
sentence
cf
durden
california
souter
joined
breyer
dissenting
denial
certiorari
arguing
hear
three
strikes
gross
disproportionality
issue
direct
review
potential
disagreement
application
aedpa
gross
disproportionality
principle
reserves
constitutional
violation
extraordinary
case
applying
principle
purposes
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
california
appeal
affirm
andrade
sentence
two
consecutive
terms
years
life
prison
judgment
appeals
ninth
circuit
accordingly
reversed
ordered
bill
lockyer
attorney
general
fornia
petitioner
leandro
andrade
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
march
justice
souter
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
application
eighth
amendment
prohibition
cruel
unusual
punishment
terms
years
articulated
clearly
established
principle
acknowledged
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
offense
imposed
unconstitutional
see
ante
harmelin
michigan
solem
helm
rummel
estelle
reasons
set
forth
justice
breyer
dissent
ewing
california
ante
joined
andrade
sentence
survive
eighth
amendment
review
criminal
history
less
grave
ewing
yet
received
prison
term
twice
long
less
serious
triggering
offense
sure
habeas
case
prohibition
couched
terms
general
gross
disproportion
necessarily
leaves
state
courts
much
leeway
statutory
criterion
conditions
federal
relief
upon
finding
state
unreasonably
applied
clear
law
see
case
nonetheless
presents
two
independent
reasons
holding
disproportionality
review
state
erroneous
unreasonable
entitling
andrade
relief
respectfully
dissent
accordingly
first
reason
holding
solem
happens
recent
effort
proportionality
review
recidivist
sentencing
authority
left
doubt
harmelin
see
although
solem
important
instructions
applying
objective
proportionality
analysis
see
case
controlling
established
benchmark
applying
general
principle
specifically
held
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
parole
uttering
account
check
disproportionate
crime
even
though
defendant
committed
six
prior
nonviolent
felonies
explaining
proportionality
review
contrasted
result
rummel
ground
life
sentence
included
parole
eligibility
years
solem
facts
fours
solem
point
result
andrade
like
defendant
solem
repeat
offender
committed
theft
fairly
trifling
value
criminal
records
comparable
including
burglary
though
andrade
residential
violent
crimes
crimes
person
respective
sentences
strikingly
alike
although
andrade
petty
thefts
occurred
two
separate
occasions
sentence
understood
punishment
total
amount
stole
two
thefts
separated
two
weeks
involved
victim
apparently
constituted
parts
single
continuing
effort
finance
drug
sales
seriousness
measured
dollar
value
things
taken
government
charged
thefts
single
indictment
cf
sentencing
commission
guidelines
manual
grouping
temporally
separated
counts
one
offense
sentencing
purposes
state
accordingly
spoke
punishment
collectively
well
carrying
minimum
parole
eligibility
see
app
pet
cert
say
sentence
years
life
issue
case
disproportionate
andrade
years
old
sentenced
substantial
period
amounts
life
without
parole
solem
supra
quoting
robinson
california
considering
whether
punishment
cruel
unusual
questions
considered
cf
rummel
supra
defendant
eligibility
parole
years
informs
proper
assessment
cruel
unusual
punishment
claim
results
eighth
amendment
therefore
case
ways
reach
different
conclusion
reject
practical
equivalence
life
sentence
without
parole
one
parole
eligibility
see
ante
andrade
retains
possibility
parole
discount
continuing
authority
solem
example
california
see
app
pet
cert
current
validity
solem
proportionality
analysis
questionable
former
unrealistic
man
released
years
behind
bars
real
life
left
survives
released
latter
disparaging
solem
point
reference
eighth
amendment
analysis
wrong
matter
law
second
reason
relief
required
even
unreasonable
application
standard
rests
alternative
way
looking
andrade
sentence
two
separate
applications
law
construing
challenge
going
second
consecutive
minimum
term
triggered
petty
understand
revealing
look
sentence
way
helps
recall
basic
difficulty
inherent
proportionality
review
require
comparison
offense
penalty
disclose
truly
gross
disproportionality
constitutional
limit
passed
large
part
believe
legislatures
institutionally
equipped
better
judgment
courts
deciding
penalty
merited
particular
behavior
solem
case
however
substantially
aided
reviewing
function
two
determinations
made
state
first
state
adoption
particular
penalogical
theory
principal
reason
shutting
defendant
away
least
although
state
alludes
passing
retribution
deterrence
see
brief
petitioner
reply
brief
petitioner
serious
justification
minimum
treats
sentence
way
incapacitate
given
defendant
crime
underlying
theory
need
protect
public
danger
demonstrated
prior
record
violent
serious
crime
see
brief
petitioner
significant
danger
society
defendant
must
imprisoned
less
years
life
statute
carefully
tailored
address
defendants
pose
greatest
danger
isolating
defendant
substantial
period
time
reply
brief
petitioner
andrade
reasoning
accepted
however
california
precluded
incapacitating
see
also
rummel
purpose
recidivist
statute
segregate
state
words
chosen
life
inherent
moral
social
reprehensibility
triggering
offense
isolation
triggering
offense
treated
seriously
rather
confirmation
defendant
danger
society
need
counter
threat
incapacitation
length
incapacitation
state
made
second
helpful
determination
public
risk
danger
posed
someone
specified
predicate
record
generally
addressed
incapacitation
years
parole
eligibility
cal
penal
code
ann
ii
west
law
sum
responds
condition
defendant
shown
prior
felony
record
danger
society
reflects
judgment
years
incapacitation
prior
parole
eligibility
appropriate
defendant
exhibiting
condition
commits
another
felony
whether
one
accepts
state
choice
penalogical
policy
constitutionally
sound
policy
reasonably
justify
imposition
consecutive
minimum
second
minor
felony
committed
soon
first
triggering
offense
andrade
somehow
become
twice
dangerous
society
stole
second
handful
videotapes
dangerousness
may
justify
treating
one
minor
felony
serious
warranting
long
incapacitation
second
felony
disclose
greater
danger
warranting
substantially
longer
incapacitation
since
defendant
condition
changed
two
closely
related
thefts
incapacitation
penalty
open
simple
arithmetic
multiplying
punishment
two
without
resulting
gross
disproportion
even
state
chosen
benchmark
far
attempting
novel
penal
theory
justify
doubling
sentence
california
appeal
offered
comment
particular
penal
theory
supporting
punishment
app
pet
cert
perhaps
even
tellingly
one
seriously
argue
second
theft
videotapes
provided
basis
think
andrade
dangerous
years
date
consecutive
sentence
begin
run
require
least
years
know
jurisdiction
add
years
imprisonment
simply
reflect
fact
two
temporally
related
thefts
took
place
two
separate
occasions
surprised
california
found
case
even
law
tr
oral
arg
state
counsel
acknowledging
reference
sentences
based
two
convictions
sum
argument
repeating
trivial
crime
justifies
doubling
minimum
incapacitation
sentence
based
threat
public
raise
seriously
debatable
point
judgments
might
reasonably
differ
argument
irrational
state
acceptance
response
facially
gross
disproportion
triggering
offense
penalty
unreasonable
within
meaning
rare
sentence
demonstrable
gross
disproportionality
california
legislature
may
well
recognized
specifically
provided
prosecutor
may
move
dismiss
strike
prior
felony
conviction
furtherance
justice
cal
penal
code
ann
west
case
statutory
safeguard
failed
state
left
ensure
eighth
amendment
prohibition
grossly
disproportionate
sentences
met
andrade
sentence
grossly
disproportionate
principle
meaning
california
holding
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
precedent
footnotes
justice
souter
argues
possibility
andrade
receiving
parole
years
makes
case
similar
facts
solem
helm
post
dissenting
opinion
andrade
sentence
however
also
similar
facts
rummel
estelle
case
also
controlling
post
given
lack
clarity
precedents
solem
rummel
harmelin
michigan
say
state
affirmance
two
sentences
years
life
prison
contrary
clearly
established
precedent
extent
justice
souter
arguing
similarity
solem
case
entitles
andrade
relief
unreasonable
application
prong
reject
analysis
reasons
given
infra
moreover
true
andrade
sentence
understood
punishment
total
amount
stole
post
contrary
california
law
specifically
provides
violation
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
triggers
separate
application
three
strikes
law
different
felony
counts
arising
set
operative
facts
see
also
andrade
sentenced
two
consecutive
terms
california
law
precisely
two
thefts
two
different
kmart
stores
occurring
two
weeks
apart
two
distinct
crimes
justice
souter
relying
robinson
california
also
argues
case
unrealistic
think
sentence
years
life
andrade
equivalent
life
prison
without
parole
post
argument
however
misses
point
based
precedents
state
decision
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
law
moreover
justice
souter
position
treat
sentence
life
without
parole
person
convicted
murder
equivalent
sentence
life
possibility
parole
years
person
convicted
crime
two
different
sentences
become
materially
indistinguishable
based
solely
upon
age
persons
sentenced
justice
souter
hold
andrade
sentence
also
violates
unreasonable
application
prong
post
reasons
however
change
uncertainty
scope
proportionality
principle
say
state
decision
unreasonable
application
principle
footnotes
point
independent
fact
recognized
ante
remains
open
andrade
appeal
sentence
people
garcia
cal
holding
trial
may
dismiss
strikes
basis
discretion
consistent
mandatory
consecutive
sentencing
provision
implicit
distinction
future
dangerousness
repunishment
prior
crimes
notion
triggering
offense
must
within
degree
substantial
enough
bear
weight
sentence
elicits
triggering
offenses
become
increasingly
minor
recidivist
sentences
grow
sentences
advance
toward
double
jeopardy
violations
defendants
parking
violators
slow
readers
borrowed
library
books
much
room
belief
even
light
past
criminal
record
state
permanently
incapacitating
defendant
future
dangerousness
rather
resentencing
past
offenses
said
question
legitimacy
repeatedly
sentencing
defendant
light
criminal
record
federal
sentencing
guidelines
provide
prime
example
sentencing
scheme
may
take
account
defendant
criminal
history
without
resentencing
defendant
past
convictions
witte
triggering
offense
determines
range
possible
sentences
past
criminal
record
affects
enhancement
sentence
point
merely
triggering
offense
must
reasonably
support
weight
even
harshest
possible
sentences