Raymond Ramirez v. JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections

09-55227Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23 de fev. de 2010

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND RAMIREZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55227
D.C. No. 5:00-cv-00195-VAP-SH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 15, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Ramirez appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. We affirm.
The California Supreme Court’s decision denying Ramirez’s habeas petition
was not an unreasonable application of the “narrow proportionality principle that
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
applies to noncapital sentences.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Possession of any quantity of illegal drugs is no less serious than the theft offenses
that the Supreme Court has found not to raise an inference of gross
disproportionality. See Taylor v. Lewis, 460 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006). Nor
does Ramirez’s criminal history raise such an inference, because an attempt to
restrain a victim in her home is “marked by . . . the threat of violence.” Solem v.
Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292-93, 296 (1983). If the gravity of a petitioner’s triggering
offense and criminal history does not create an inference of gross
disproportionality, we need not proceed to intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional
comparisons. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1004 (1991) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Rios v. Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082,
1086 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.