## Facts

- Gary Albert Ewing stole three golf clubs priced at $399 each from a golf course pro shop by concealing them in his pants and leaving the store.
- At the time of the theft, Ewing was on parole following a sentence for multiple prior felonies.
- Ewing had four prior “serious or violent” felony convictions—three residential burglaries and one robbery—along with a longer history of criminal conduct.
- Ewing was convicted in California state court of felony grand theft.
- Under California’s three-strikes law, the trial court sentenced Ewing to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life based on his prior serious or violent felony convictions.
- The trial court declined to reduce the theft offense to a misdemeanor under California’s “wobbler” authority and declined to dismiss any prior strike allegations.
- California appellate courts affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a sentence of 25 years to life imposed under California’s three-strikes law for felony grand theft, in light of the defendant’s prior serious or violent felonies, is “grossly disproportionate” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment upholding Ewing’s sentence.
- A plurality concluded the Eighth Amendment contains a narrow proportionality principle for noncapital sentences and forbids only sentences that are “grossly disproportionate.”
- Applying that standard and considering Ewing’s recidivism, the plurality held the 25-years-to-life term was not grossly disproportionate.
- Concurring Justices agreed in the result but would not apply the plurality’s proportionality framework to term-of-years sentences.
- Four Justices dissented, concluding the sentence was grossly disproportionate given the minor nature of the triggering theft.

## Legal Principles

- For noncapital sentences, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality; it prohibits only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.
- Proportionality review of term-of-years sentences is highly deferential to legislative sentencing choices and is satisfied in all but rare cases.
- In assessing a recidivist sentence, a court may consider the defendant’s criminal history; the state may punish the latest felony more severely because it occurs against a backdrop of prior serious or violent felonies.
- States may pursue incapacitation and deterrence through repeat-offender statutes, and courts generally defer to those policy judgments when applying the gross disproportionality standard.

## Conclusion

The Court held that California’s three-strikes sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft, imposed on a defendant with multiple prior serious or violent felonies, did not violate the Eighth Amendment because it was not grossly disproportionate under the narrow proportionality standard governing noncapital sentences.


Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003)