Crosby v. Schwartz
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9149
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Crosby was convicted in a bench trial of failing to register as a sex offender and related charges, with prior serious felonies enhancing punishment.
- Before trial, Crosby agreed to waive a jury trial for the Section 290 charges after government consent, and the court conducted a colloquy confirming the waiver.
- The trial court found Crosby guilty on the registration charges and true on three prior felonies, sentencing him to 26 years to life under California's Three Strikes Law.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Crosby knowingly and intelligently waived the jury trial and that withdrawal of the waiver, if timely, was within the court's discretion.
- Crosby challenged the jury waiver, withdrawal denial, and the Eighth Amendment proportionality of his sentence under the Solem framework.
- The Ninth Circuit applied AEDPA deference and upheld the state court rulings, concluding no clearly established federal law was violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Crosby's jury waiver validly made? | Crosby argues the waiver was not express. | The waiver was express and intelligent based on the colloquy. | Waiver valid; not contrary to clearly established law. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal of the waiver? | Constitution requires reinstatement of jury trial rights after valid waiver. | Withdrawal timeliness and disruption justify denial. | No abuse; no clearly established right to reinstate after waiver. |
| Does Crosby's 26-to-life sentence under Three Strikes violate the Eighth Amendment? | Sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. | Disproportionality depends on context; prior violent history and offense justify sentence. | Not objectively unreasonable under AEDPA; proportionality not violated given circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (jury waiver requires express and intelligent consent)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (defers to state court rulings; clearly established federal law standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA review is highly deferential)
- United States v. Mortensen, 860 F.2d 948 (1988) (timeliness governs withdrawal of waiver)
- Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes annual vs. address-change registration under Three Strikes)
- Carmony v. Meacham, 127 Cal.App.4th 1066 (Cal. App. 2005) (meets proportionality considerations for annual registration)
- Meeks, 123 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. App. 2004) (address-change registration linked to public safety; not de minimis)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (three-factor framing for gross disproportionality)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (footnote suggesting state may deem recidivist punishment ends justify policy)
- Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2004) (diverse outcomes applying disproportionality in Three Strikes cases)
- Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2008) (discerned distinction between per se de minimis and substantial violations)
- Rios v. Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2004) (considered gross disproportionality in Three Strikes)