Skip to content

Criminal LawPunishment and legality

Ewing v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 5, 2003 · Core case

Full citation

Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

Ewing

convicted repeat felonpetitioner

California

staterespondent

The parties: Ewing v. California.

Brief

Facts

Gary Ewing, who was on parole from a 9-year prison term, walked into the pro shop of a golf course in Los Angeles County on March 12, 2000. He walked out with three golf clubs, priced at $399 apiece, concealed in his pants leg. A shop employee noticed him limping, called the police, and the police arrested him in the parking lot. Ewing had a long criminal record. It included several theft, battery, burglary, weapon and drug paraphernalia convictions. In October and November 1993 he committed three burglaries and one robbery at a Long Beach apartment complex. During the robbery he claimed to have a gun, then produced a knife and took the victim's money and credit cards. He was paroled in 1999, only 10 months before the golf club theft. Ewing was charged with, and convicted of, felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400. Grand theft is a "wobbler" under California law, a crime that may be treated as either a felony or a misdemeanor. California's three strikes law requires a life term for a felony defendant with two or more prior "serious" or "violent" felony convictions. The prosecutor alleged, and the trial court found, that Ewing had four such prior convictions, for the three burglaries and the robbery.

Issues

  1. Does the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibit California from sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years to life under its three strikes law for felony grand theft of three golf clubs?
  2. In judging whether such a sentence is grossly disproportionate, may a court take into account the defendant's long record of felony recidivism and the State's interest in incapacitating and deterring repeat offenders?

Holding

The judgment of the Court is that Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft under California's three strikes law stands. The plurality concluded the sentence is not grossly disproportionate, because it is justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivists and by Ewing's long criminal record.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/ewing-v-california