## Facts

- Robert Alton Harris was convicted in California state court of a capital offense and sentenced to death under California’s post-*Furman* capital sentencing statute.
- On direct appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
- Harris argued that the Eighth Amendment required the state appellate court to compare his death sentence with sentences imposed in similar capital cases (comparative proportionality review).
- California law did not mandate a formal, record-based comparative proportionality review in every capital case.
- State habeas relief was denied.
- In federal habeas proceedings, the district court denied relief, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that comparative proportionality review was constitutionally required.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Constitution requires comparative proportionality review as a mandatory feature of capital appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment requires, in every capital case upon request, that a state appellate court compare the death sentence to penalties imposed in similar cases before affirming the sentence.
2. Whether a federal habeas court may grant relief based on an asserted entitlement to comparative proportionality review arising from state law rather than federal law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require, as an invariable rule, comparative proportionality review of a death sentence.
- The Court rejected reliance on state-law arguments as a basis for federal habeas relief, reiterating that federal habeas is not available for mere errors of state law.
- The Court concluded that California’s capital sentencing system contained sufficient safeguards against arbitrary imposition of the death penalty without a formal comparative proportionality review requirement.

## Legal Principles

- The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty does not mandate a specific appellate method—such as comparative proportionality review—in every capital case.
- The constitutionality of a capital sentencing scheme depends on the system’s overall safeguards, including narrowing of death eligibility and structured sentencing procedures, rather than the presence of comparative proportionality review.
- Federal habeas relief may not be granted on the basis of a perceived error of state law; a claimed state-law entitlement must generally be addressed by state courts, not enforced through the federal writ.

## Conclusion

The Court held that comparative proportionality review is not constitutionally required in every capital case and that federal habeas courts cannot grant relief based solely on alleged state-law violations concerning such review, upholding California’s death-penalty scheme as sufficiently protective against arbitrariness without that mandatory appellate comparison.


Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984)