Facts: Mr. Andrade walked into an Ontario, California store in 1995 and stole five video tapes from it. Not more than two weeks later he walked into another store and stole five more video tapes in a neighboring city. The total cost of all the tapes was $150. Andrade was known for being in and out of federal and state prisons since the early 80’s. Before he committed both of these crimes in 1995, he was convicted of petty theft, home burglary, escaping from prison, as well as transporting marijuana. Because of these previous convictions Mr. Andrade was indicted for petty theft on two counts. California law states that petty theft can be a felony or a misdemeanor. California also has a three strikes law and a felony can serve as the third strike. …show more content…
Estelle, Solem v Helm, and Harmelin v. Michigan determine that his sentence is completely unequal and that it violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Under US Code §2254(d)(1), the clearly established Federal law is the governing legal standard set forth by the supreme court at the time a state court adjudicates its judgment. The trouble with Andrade's opinion, is that the Supreme Court has not established rules for lower courts to follow in regulating whether a certain sentence for a term of years can violate the Eighth Amendment rights of the defendants. One of the only clearly established laws emerging from the Courts theory of law in this particular area, is that a gross disproportionality principle applies to such sentences.

B. Application: In California's three strikes law, a felony can establish the third strike and sentence a perpetrator to 25 years to life in prison. California’s appeal court’s decision was not conflicting to the clearly established gross disproportionality principle. Applying this principle for US Code §2254(d)(1) reasons, it was not an irrational application of the clearly established laws, for California’s appeals court to uphold Andrade's sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to