Jerry Ray Parrish v. James A. Yates

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JERRY RAY PARRISH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55893
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01402-GW-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Ray Parrish (“Parrish”) appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Parrish argues on appeal that his sentence, stemming from four
felony convictions under California’s three strikes law, is grossly disproportionate
to his crimes and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the
FILED
AUG 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Parrish’s three strikes sentence does not fail the gross disproportionality test.
See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-76 (2003) (affirming a sentence of two
consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life for stealing $150 worth of video
tapes under California’s three strikes law); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 21-22
(2003) (affirming a three strikes sentence of twenty-five years to life for the theft
of three golf clubs). Parrish has numerous prior misdemeanor and felony
convictions, including a felony conviction for robbery with the use of a firearm and
a felony conviction for robbery causing great bodily harm. In addition, his current
convictions are more serious than those in Lockyer and Ewing. Because the
California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Parrish’s sentence was not
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law,
habeas relief may not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --