Pubdate: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 Source: Washington Post (DC) Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491 Author: Charles Lane Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) COURT TO REVIEW 'THREE STRIKES' Justices Agree To Hear Two Cases Under California Sentencing Law The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will consider whether a California law that imposes dramatically tougher prison sentences on repeat criminal offenders violates the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. By agreeing to hear the cases of two men who are serving decades in prison for theft under California's law requiring a 25-years-to-life sentence for third felony convictions, the justices have stepped into a mounting national debate over the fairness and efficiency of criminal justice. "Three strikes and you're out" laws were popular when enacted in California and some 25 other states during the mid-1990s; many state law enforcement officials -- and voters -- continue to credit them for much of the recent decline in crime, arguing that the laws take career offenders off the streets. California's three-strikes law is considered the toughest in the country, as it authorizes possible life sentences for any third felony conviction, even a nonviolent or relatively minor one, as long as the defendant's two prior offenses were serious or violent. As incarceration rates have risen, however, three-strikes laws have come under fire from civil rights groups, defense lawyers and even some prosecutors who argue that it is disproportionate to imprison people for decades for offenses that might have brought a brief jail term under different circumstances. For many such offenders, opponents of "three strikes" say, drug treatment would be a more humane and cost-effective alternative. "The issue is serious . . . and the stakes are substantial," Justice David H. Souter wrote in February 2001, dissenting with Justice Stephen G. Breyer from the court's decision not to review an earlier case about the California law. At the time, no lower court had yet voided a California three-strikes sentence, and two other liberal-leaning justices, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were on record as saying the issue was "serious" but needed more lower-court review. The votes of four of the nine justices are needed to agree to hear an appeal. The court is led by a five-member conservative majority. Then, in November 2001, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a sentence of two consecutive 25-years-to-life terms for convicted thief Leandro Andrade. The 9th Circuit held that the Constitution "does not permit the application of a law which results in a sentence grossly disproportionate to the crime." California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the justices to reinstate Andrade's sentence, arguing in his petition for review that "unless repudiated," the appeals court's "decision will open the floodgates of litigation on nearly all three-strikes sentences." In agreeing to hear Lockyer's appeal, the court said yesterday that it would decide the case in tandem with an appeal by Gary A. Ewing, who is seeking reversal of his 25-years-to-life sentence for stealing golf clubs worth about $1,200. California's three-strikes law was adopted at a time of strong public revulsion at the 1994 abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas -- a brutal crime for which a repeat offender on parole at the time of the kidnapping was later convicted and sentenced to death. Some 57 percent of the 7,000 people serving sentences under the California law were convicted of nonviolent third felonies, including 644 convicted of drug possession and 340 convicted of petty theft, state officials say. One of the most hotly debated aspects of California's three-strikes law, other than the long mandatory prison terms, is that prosecutors have discretion whether to charge certain third offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanors. (Judges may, in some cases, decide to reduce felonies to misdemeanors after conviction.) This "wobbler" rule is at the heart of the two cases on which the court has agreed to rule. Andrade, a heroin addict, had been convicted of five felonies, including first-degree burglary and a drug charge, before 1995, when he was arrested for stealing about $150 worth of videos from K-mart stores. Petty theft is usually treated as a misdemeanor in California, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. But Andrade's previous felony convictions permitted the prosecutor to treat his latest offense as a felony, activating the "three strikes" rule. He will be eligible for parole in 2046, when he is 87. Ewing was also a drug addict who financed his habit by theft. In March 2000, he was spotted by a clerk at an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop walking stiff-legged from the store to the parking lot. Police discovered that Ewing had left the pro shop with three expensive golf clubs stuffed down his pants. If Ewing's crime, grand theft, had been treated as a misdemeanor, it would have carried a one-year maximum sentence. Ewing, who has AIDS, will be eligible for parole in 2025, when he is 63. He challenged his sentence in state court, but his appeals were denied and he petitioned for Supreme Court review. "The sentence of [25] years to life is cruel and unusual punishment for a person who is seriously ill and does not expect to live very long because he stole golf clubs," Ewing's petition said. The cases are Lockyer v. Andrade, No. 01-1127, and Ewing v. California, No. 01-6978. The court will hear oral arguments next fall, and a decision is due by July 2003. - --- MAP posted-by: Alex