Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

ANDRADE v. LOCKYER

United States Supreme Court No. 01-1127

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. What, if any, law is "clearly established" by Supreme Court precedent with respect to Eighth Amendment challenges to the proportionality of prison sentences?

2. Was the state court's application of the relevant body of law to the defendant's challenge to his sentence so arbitrary as to exist outside of the universe of plausible outcomes and therefore unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: November 5, 2002

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amici curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument, Parts I - II A

I. The AEDPA issue should be resolved first, as a "threshold matter"

II. The California court correctly identified and applied the few clearly established principles in an unsettled body of law

Mullaney, Patterson, and Edwards

A. The unsettled law
1. Rummel
2. Hutto
3. Solem
4. Harmelin

Part II B

B. Searching for clarity

Parts III - Conclusion

III. The California court's application of what little clearly established law there is in this area was reasonable

IV. If this Court subsequently invalidates part of California's three strikes scheme, the defendant can obtain relief in the California courts even if his claim is rejected in the present case

Conclusion