Riggs v. California

Background

A pro se petitioner who stole a bottle of vitamins in 1995 asked the Court to review his sentence. The California Court of Appeal described the theft as a petty offense motivated by homelessness and hunger. If it had been his first offense, the act would have been a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or up to six months in jail under California law. Because of the petitioner’s prior record, state law and California cases allowed or required the trial judge to treat the theft as a felony and then apply the State’s three‑strikes law, producing a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life.

Reasoning

The core question was whether it is unconstitutionally disproportionate to give a 25‑years‑to‑life sentence when the underlying act is a petty theft. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, said this is a substantial question but explained it was prudent to deny review. The opinion points out that no state supreme court or federal court has yet resolved how recidivist rules should apply when a prior record first converts a misdemeanor into a felony and then triggers the three‑strikes penalty. The opinion notes the petitioner has eight prior felony convictions and stresses that denying review does not decide the constitutional claim on the merits.

Real world impact

The denial leaves the lower‑court sentence intact for now and preserves uncertainty about using prior records to elevate petty crimes and invoke three‑strikes penalties. The opinion notes that the petitioner can raise the Eighth Amendment claim later in federal habeas proceedings. The Court chose to await further development in other courts before taking a final position.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer dissented, agreeing the question is serious and stating he would grant the petition for review.