Leroy Holsey v. William Knipp , 672 F. App'x 731 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             DEC 28 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    LEROY DALE HOLSEY,                               No.    15-17091
    Petitioner-Appellant,              D.C. No.
    2:13-cv-00962-KJM-GGH
    v.
    WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,                           MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 13, 2016
    San Francisco, California
    Before:      KOZINSKI, BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    We may grant federal habeas relief to a state prisoner if the state’s
    adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
    unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
    Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Supreme Court
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    page 2
    has extended the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual
    punishment to non-capital sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the
    crime. Ewing v. California, 
    538 U.S. 11
    , 23 (2003). But successful
    proportionality challenges are “exceedingly rare,” Rummel v. Estelle, 
    445 U.S. 263
    , 272 (1980), and we cannot grant habeas relief if “fairminded jurists could
    disagree on the correctness” of the state court’s decision, Harrington v. Richter,
    
    562 U.S. 86
    , 88 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Our circuit has given federal habeas relief to a previous California prisoner
    convicted of the same offense and sentenced to the same term that Holsey now
    challenges. See Gonzalez v. Duncan, 
    551 F.3d 875
    (9th Cir. 2008). But the
    California Court of Appeal distinguished Holsey’s case from Gonzalez based on
    Holsey’s greater propensity to recidivate, as did the district court. Because
    fairminded jurists could conclude that Holsey’s pattern of recidivism rendered his
    sentence constitutional, federal habeas relief is unavailable.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-17091

Citation Numbers: 672 F. App'x 731

Filed Date: 12/28/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023