After his theft of the golf clubs, Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft of personal property. This gave him two or more serious or violent felony convictions, which meant that he was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three strikes law.
What was the sentence for Ewing's crime?
Ewing was paroled in 1999, ten months before he stole the golf clubs from the pro shop in El Segundo. At sentencing on the golf club theft, the judge classified the 1993 burglaries and robbery as "two strikes" and imposed the 25-to-life sentence under California's three strikes law.
What happened to Gary Ewing?
In 2000, Gary Ewing attempted to steal three golf clubs, valued at $399 each, from a golf shop in El Segundo, California. He was charged with felony grand theft, the unlawful taking of property valued at over $950.
What was the sentence for Grand Theft golf clubs?
After his theft of the golf clubs, Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft of personal property. This gave him two or more serious or violent felony convictions, which meant that he was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three strikes law.
Why was John Ewing on parole for Grand Theft?
At the time, Ewing was on parole for three burglaries and a robbery that had resulted in a nine-year prison sentence. Ewing had also been convicted of multiple misdemeanors. Grand theft is a "wobbler" in California, meaning it can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor.
What happened to the three strikes law?
The requirements for sentencing a defendant as a third strike offender were changed to 25 years to life by requiring the new felony to be a serious or violent felony with two or more prior strikes to qualify for the 25 year-to-life sentence as a third strike offender; and.
Who won Ewing v California?
Conclusion: The Court determined that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit California from making a judgment that protecting the public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime.
Is the three strikes law unconstitutional?
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of California's Three Strikes law.
What happened in Solem v helm?
Helm was convicted of writing a check from a fictitious account, a crime carrying with it a five-year jail sentence. However, since this was his seventh felony conviction in South Dakota since 1964, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under a state recidivist statute.
What is Ewing ruling?
What does the Ewing decision mean? Simply put, the court clarified that a therapist could be held liable for failure to issue a Tarasoff warning, even if the information indicating dangerousness comes from a patient's family member rather than from the patient.
What did the United States Supreme Court rule in Ewing v California?
Three strikes laws do not violate the constitutional prohibition against punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the crime because there is a reasonable basis for believing that these laws would further the legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders.
How long is a life sentence?
Life is when someone is alive, so a life sentence must mean a sentence that lasts until they die. But, it's not nearly that simple. A life sentence is technically the term for a prison sentence that is intended to last for the rest of the accused person's natural life.
What states have 3 strikes law?
In 1994: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Tennessee.
Who was Kimber Reynolds?
18-year-old Kimber Reynolds died in an armed robbery in Fresno's Tower District in 1992. Police killed the actual gunman. His accomplice was Douglas Walker, and even after he avoided life in prison for Kimber's death, prison seemed like a magnet for him. "Since the date of December 1992, Mr.
What did the Supreme Court develop in the 1983 Solem vs helm decision?
The Court overturned a life sentence without parole imposed under a recidivist statute (mandating more severe sentences for repeat offenders) on a defendant convicted of seven relatively minor felonies.
What resulted from the case of Solem v helm which tested the gravity of the offense and consistency of the severity of punishment?
It concluded, on the basis of this examination, that Helm's sentence was "grossly disproportionate to the nature of the offense." 684 F. 2d at 587. It therefore directed the District Court to issue the writ unless the State resentenced Helm.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Rhodes v Chapman?
The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that reversed the Chapman decision held that the Court that reversed the Chapman decision held that the inmate harm from double celling was a natural consequence of incarceration and neither cruel nor unusual in its purpose or effect.
What was the holding in Faretta v California?
The Supreme Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to defend himself when he voluntarily and intelligently wants to do so.
How should the Court decide the Andrade case?
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.
In which case did the US Supreme Court upheld California's three strikes law?
Ewing v. CaliforniaEwing 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.
What is the significance of Graham v Florida?
Florida. On May 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional.
How long is Ewing in jail for stealing golf clubs?
Imprisoning a man for 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs is grossly disproportionate punishment, Justice O'Connor wrote. However, the court must take into account his criminal history, before making a judgment. Ewing stole the clubs while on probation for at least two other serious felonies.
What was Gary Ewing's crime?
In 2000, Gary Ewing attempted to steal three golf clubs, valued at $399 each, from a golf shop in El Segundo, California. He was charged with felony grand theft, the unlawful taking of property valued at over $950. At the time, Ewing was on parole for three burglaries and a robbery that had resulted in a nine-year prison sentence.
How long was Gary Ewing sentenced to?
Gary Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law for committing felony grand theft after having at least two other "serious" or "violent" felonies on his record. The Supreme Court found that the sentence was not "grossly disproportionate" to the crime under the Eighth Amendment, ...
What was the case of Ewing v. Helm?
The attorney relied on Solem v. Helm (1983), in which the court had looked only at the crime at hand, and not the prior convictions, when deciding whether a life without parole sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. He argued that Ewing should not have been given 25 years to life for a “wobbler” crime.
What did Helm argue about Ewing?
He argued that Ewing should not have been given 25 years to life for a “wobbler” crime.
What did the California Court of Appeals decide about grand theft?
Ewing appealed. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to charge grand theft as a felony. The Court of Appeals also rejected Ewing's claim that the three-strikes law violated his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
What does it mean when Ewing's crime is not violent?
criminal history. The fact that Ewing’s latest crime was not violent means that his conduct should not have been treated the same as if it was , Justice Breyer explained . Justice Stevens also dissented, joined by Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer.
Who is Gary Ewing?
The Defendant, Gary Ewing (Defendant), was convicted of one count of felony grand theft. Since he had previously been convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies, Defendant was sentenced, under California’s “three strikes” law to 25 years to life in prison. Synopsis of Rule of Law.
What happened to the defendant in the 1993 robbery?
On December 9, 1993, Defendant was arrested on the premises of the apartment complex for trespassing and lying to a police officer. The knife used in the robbery and a glass cocaine pipe were later found in the back seat of the patrol car used to transport Defendant to the police station.
How long was the defendant in the robbery case?
After his conviction of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary, Defendant was sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison. While on parole for this conviction, Defendant stole the golf clubs at issue in this case.
What was the defendant's crime in the 1990s?
In 1990, Defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior. In 1992, he was convicted of battery. One month later, Defendant was convicted of theft. In January of 1993, he was convicted of burglary. In February 1993, he was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia.
What is the rule of law for three strikes?
Three strikes laws, which serve the legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders, do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s (Constitution) prohibition on the imposition of a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.
How many golf clubs did Gary Ewing steal?
Gary Ewing took three golf clubs priced at $399 each from a golf pro shop, concealing them in his pants leg. He was on parole from a nine-year prison term at the time, having been convicted of four serious or violent felonies based on three burglaries and a robbery. After his theft of the golf clubs, Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft ...
How long was Ewing in prison?
Sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison, Ewing was paroled in 1999. Only 10 months later, Ewing stole the golf clubs at issue in this case. He was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, one count of felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400.
What was the sentence for Ewing?
This gave him two or more serious or violent felony convictions, which meant that he was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three strikes law.
What was the grand theft of Ewing?
While on parole, petitioner Ewing was convicted of felony grand the ft for stealing three golf clubs, worth $399 apiece. As required by the three strikes law, the prosecutor formally alleged, and the trial court found, that Ewing had been convicted previously of four serious or violent felonies.
Why are some crimes considered a wobbler?
Some crimes that would otherwise be misdemeanors become "wobblers" because of the defendant's prior record. For example, petty theft, a misdemeanor, becomes a "wobbler" when the defendant has previously served a prison term for committing specified theft-related crimes. § 490 (West 1999); § 666 (West Supp. 2002).
What is the Estelle case?
263, it rejected Ewing's claim that his sentence was grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and reasoned that enhanced sentences under the three strikes law served the State's legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. The State Supreme Court denied review.
When did California pass the 3 strikes law?
California thus became the second State to enact a three strikes law. In November 1993, the voters of Washington State approved their own three strikes law, Initiative 593, by a margin of 3 to 1. U.
Facts of The Case
Three Strikes
- "Three strikes” is a sentencing doctrine that has been used since the 1990s. The name references the rule in baseball: three strikes and you're out. California's version of the law, enacted in 1994, could be triggered if someone was convicted of a felony after having been convicted of one or more prior felonies considered "serious" or "violent."
Constitutional Issues
- Are three-strikes laws unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment? Was Ewing subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he received a harsher penalty for his grand theft felony conviction?
Arguments
- An attorney representing Ewing argued that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime. While California's three-strikes law was reasonable and "could result in a proportionate sentence,” it had not in Ewing’s case. The attorney relied on Solem v. Helm (1983), in which the court had looked only at the crime at hand, and not the prior convictions, when deciding whethe…
Majority Opinion
- Justice Sandra Day O'Connordelivered the 5-4 decision on behalf of the majority. The decision focused on the Eighth Amendment proportionality clause which states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Justice O’Connor noted that the Court had issued prior rulings on Eighth Amendment proportionality. In …
Dissenting Opinion
- Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. Justice Breyer listed three characteristics that could help the Court determine whether a sentence was proportional: 1. the time the offender will likely spend in prison 2. the criminal conduct and circumstances surrounding it 3. criminal history The fact that Ewing’s latest crime …
Impact
- Ewing v. California was one of two cases that challenged the constitutionality of three-strikes laws. Lockyer v. Andrade, a decision handed down on the same day as Ewing, denied relief under Habeus Corpus from a 50-year sentence imposed under California’s three-strikes law. Together, the cases effectively prevent future Eighth Amendment objections to non-capital sentences.
Sources
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).