Riggs v. California
Headline: Court declines to review California’s three-strikes law applied to petty theft, leaving a 25-years-to-life sentence for a vitamin theft in place while lower courts sort out the issue.
Holding:
- Leaves the severe three-strikes sentence in place while lower courts consider the issue.
- Creates uncertainty over ‘double counting’ prior convictions when enhancing sentences.
- Allows the defendant to pursue federal habeas review of his sentence.
Summary
Background
A man who was homeless stole a bottle of vitamins in 1995. If it had been his first offense, California would have treated it as a misdemeanor punishable by a small fine or up to six months in jail. Because of his prior criminal record, however, a judge treated the theft as a felony under California law and then applied the State’s mandatory three-strikes rule to impose a minimum sentence of 25 years to life.
Reasoning
The central question is whether such a long mandatory sentence for what looks like a petty theft is so excessive that it violates the Eighth Amendment (which bans cruel and unusual punishment). Justice Stevens, joined by two other Justices, said the question is a serious one and noted that California may be unique in allowing this result. But because no state supreme court or federal court has resolved how earlier cases about repeat offenders apply here, the Court declined to take the case now and did not rule on the constitutional question.
Real world impact
As a result, the 25-to-life sentence remains in effect for this petitioner for now, and lower courts will have the first chance to address whether such a sentence is excessive. The opinion highlights uncertainty about using a defendant’s past record both to upgrade a misdemeanor into a felony and then to trigger extreme mandatory sentences.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Breyer dissented, agreeing the question is serious and saying the Court should have agreed to review the case now.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?