Federal Habeas Relief, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Is Unwarranted Where a State Court Imposes a Sentence That Is Not Contrary to, or an Unreasonable Application of, Clearly Established Federal Law: Lockyer v. Andrade

Authors

Jude A. Thomas

Abstract

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a California state court did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it sentenced a recidivist offender to two consecutive prison terms of twenty-five years to life because the California state court did not act in a manner which was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S. Ct. 1166 (2003).

First Page

201

Recommended Citation

Jude A. Thomas, Federal Habeas Relief, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Is Unwarranted Where a State Court Imposes a Sentence That Is Not Contrary to, or an Unreasonable Application of, Clearly Established Federal Law: Lockyer v. Andrade, 42 Duq. L. Rev. 201 (2003).
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol42/iss1/9