Durden v. California
Headline: Court refuses to review California’s three‑strikes practice that treats a $43 petty theft as a third felony, leaving 25‑to‑life sentences in place while a justice urges the case be heard.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving in place California’s practice of treating a petty $43 theft as a third strike and allowing existing 25‑to‑life sentences to stand.
- Leaves 25‑to‑life sentences imposed under the California scheme unchanged for now.
- About 319 prisoners remain serving lengthy sentences under this rule.
- Reduces immediate chances for federal reconsideration because lower courts were left in place.
Summary
Background
A person convicted in California for taking $43 worth of goods faces a 25‑to‑life sentence because the state’s three‑strikes law treated that petty theft as a third felony. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower federal courts denied relief and after the Court recently declined to review a similar challenge in Riggs v. California.
Reasoning
The immediate question was whether the Justices would take up a challenge arguing that treating such a small theft as a third strike violates the Eighth Amendment (which bans cruel or unusual punishment). The Court’s majority declined to review the lower‑court rulings. In a dissent, Justice Souter (joined by Justice Breyer) said the issue is ready for decision because state courts have had time to consider it, federal habeas standards could complicate later review, and federal courts have uniformly rejected relief so far.
Real world impact
By refusing review the Court left the lower‑court decisions intact, so the existing 25‑to‑life sentences continue to be enforced. The dissent notes that about 319 California prisoners are serving these long sentences under the same scheme, and warns that federal review later might be harder because of procedural rules for postconviction cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Souter dissented from the denial of review, arguing the issue is serious, the stakes are substantial, and the Court should not wait any longer to resolve whether the practice is constitutional.
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?