Richard Lawrence Stewart v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LAWRENCE STEWART,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-15499
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01474-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 13, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SACK *** , and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Richard Stewart pled guilty to petty theft for stealing two watches, each
worth $29.99. Because of his extensive criminal history, a California court
FILED
JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Robert D. Sack, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

sentenced him to a prison term of twenty-five-years-to-life. Applying Ewing v.
California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), the California Court of Appeal ruled that Stewart’s
punishment was not “grossly disproportionate” under the Eighth Amendment
because his criminal history included repeated, serious offenses.
The district court denied Stewart’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
the deferential standard established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). On appeal, Stewart argues
that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied “clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id.
Stewart’s criminal history includes very serious violent crimes: forcible oral
copulation in concert and assault with a deadly weapon. That fact easily
distinguishes this case from cases in which the defendant had committed only
nonviolent crimes. Cf. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 280, 303 (1983) (ruling that a
life sentence without the possibility of parole was “significantly disproportionate”
to “minor criminal conduct” when the defendant had no history of committing
violent crimes); Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755, 768 (9th Cir. 2004) (granting
habeas relief when a defendant had committed only nonviolent offenses).
Stewart argues that he cannot be sentenced so harshly for such a “trivial”
crime regardless of his criminal history. In the context of AEDPA, such argument
2

-- 2 of 3 --

is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, in which the Supreme Court held that a state
court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law by affirming two
consecutive twenty-five-year sentences for stealing $153.54 worth of videotapes.
538 U.S. 63, 66, 77 (2003).
Stewart also argues that it was unreasonable for the California Court of
Appeal to consider crimes that he committed as a minor. He relies on Graham v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010), which prohibits life-without-parole sentences for
non-homicide crimes committed by minors, and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551,
577 (2005), which prohibits executions for crimes committed by minors. It was
reasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that those cases do not
prohibit the consideration of crimes committed as a minor in imposing a sentence
of imprisonment for less than the life of the defendant.
We cannot conclude that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably
applied clearly established federal law.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --