Citation network
Lockyer Vs. Andrade
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 2003
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 63 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Lockyer, Attorney General of California V. AndradeSearch
-
that his sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It found the Solem v. HelmSearch
-
U. S. 277 , proportionality analysis questionable in light of Harmelin v. MichiSearch
-
gan, 501 U. S. 957 . It then compared the facts in Andrade's case to those in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
that are materially indistinguishable from a Court decision and nevertheless arrives at a different result. Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
the correct governing legal principle but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the prisoner's case. Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
permitted an affirmance of Andrade's sentence. Cf., e. g., Riggs v. CaliforniaSearch
-
cf. Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
at 17. The trial court also has discretion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. See People v. SuperiorSearch
-
see also Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
B). The State stated at oral argument that under the decision announced by the Supreme Court of California in People v. GarciaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of Solem v. HelmSearch
-
U. S. 957 (1991). App. to Pet. for Cert. 76. The court then ap- 69 plied our decision in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
erroneous-in other words that clear error occurred.''' 270 F. 3d, at 753 (alteration in original) (quoting Van Tran v. LindseySearch
-
The court then reviewed our three most recent major precedents in this area-Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Solem v. HelmSearch
-
supra, and Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
Id., at 767 (quoting Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
to review the state court decision de novo before applying the AEDPA standard of review. See, e. g., Van Tran v. LindseySearch
-
Clark v. MurphySearch
-
court decision is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Weeks v. AngeloneSearch
-
d)(1). Andrade relies upon a series of precedents from this Court Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
U. S. 277 (1983), and Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
with Andrade's position, however, is that our precedents in this area have not been a model of clarity. See Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
can violate the Eighth Amendment, we have not established a clear or consistent path for courts to follow. See Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
see also Solem v. HelmSearch
-
see also Bell v. ConeSearch
-
to some degree both Rummel and Solem, it is not materially indistinguishable from either. Cf. Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
argues that the possibility of Andrade's receiving parole in 50 years makes this case similar to the facts in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Post, at 78-79 (dissenting opinion). Andrade's sentence, however, is also similar to the facts in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Post, at 78. Given the lack of clarity of our precedents in Solem, Rummel, and Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
analysis. In Van Tran v. LindseySearch
-
to give proper deference to state courts by conflating error (even clear error) with unreasonableness. See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
F. 3d, at 753 (quoting Van Tran v. LindseySearch
-
two different Kmart stores occurring two weeks apart were two distinct crimes. JUSTICE SOUTER, relying on Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to a set of facts different from those of the case in which the principle was announced. See, e. g., Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Syllabus Lockyer, Attorney General of California V. AndradeSearch
-
the Solem v. HelmSearch
-
of Harmelin v. MichiSearch
-
Riggs v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See People v. SuperiorSearch
-
People v. GarciaSearch
-
Van Tran v. LindseySearch
-
and Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial