Blackwell v. Williams
2:13-cv-00491
D. Nev.Dec 28, 2015Background
- Petitioner Jerrod G. C. Blackwell pleaded guilty to one count of grand larceny and was adjudicated a habitual criminal under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.010(1)(b).
- The state district court sentenced him to life with parole eligibility after 10 years; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Petitioner pursued state postconviction relief (habeas and motion to correct illegal sentence); both were denied and those denials were affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court.
- Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition raising six grounds; the district court dismissed grounds 2–6 as meritless and proceeded solely on Ground 1.
- Ground 1 alleges the habitual‑criminal adjudication/sentence violates the Eighth Amendment: (1) statute intended for violent offenders; (2) sentence is disproportionate to his offense (a purse snatching).
- The federal district court applied AEDPA deference, found the Nevada Supreme Court reasonably applied controlling Eighth Amendment precedent, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRS 207.010 is limited to violent offenders | Blackwell: statute is intended for repeat violent offenders; his offenses are nonviolent | State: statute contains no violent‑offender limitation; discretion left to sentencing court | Court: statute not limited to violent offenses (Arjakis controls) |
| Whether life with parole after 10 years is Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment as grossly disproportionate | Blackwell: sentence is extreme for a purse‑snatching and career theft history | State: sentence is within statutory limits and sentencing discretion; comparable recidivist sentences upheld | Court: sentence is not grossly disproportionate; upheld under Ewing/Harmelin framework |
| Whether the Nevada courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under AEDPA | Blackwell: state decision violates federal Eighth Amendment precedent | State: Nevada applied controlling Supreme Court precedent reasonably | Court: Nevada’s adjudication was reasonable; AEDPA deference bars relief |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue | Blackwell: appellate review is warranted on Eighth Amendment claim | State: issues are not debatable among reasonable jurists | Court: COA denied for all grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA standard for federal habeas review)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (upholding severe recidivist sentence under Eighth Amendment)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (plurality on proportionality standard)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (deference to state court interpretations under AEDPA)
- Arjakis v. State, 843 P.2d 800 (Nevada precedent: § 207.010 not limited to violent crimes)
- Blume v. State, 915 P.2d 282 (Nevada law on proportionality and sentencing discretion)