Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003),[1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter),[2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade, a nine-year Army veteran and father of three,[4] stole five children's videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California.

By the time of these two crimes in 1995, he had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escape from prison.

Andrade argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the district court rejected this claim.

The State of California asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it agreed to do so.

The incapacitation theory could not, Souter argued, justify sentencing a person to 25 more years in prison for an identical, trifling crime committed two weeks after the first.

"Since the defendant's condition has not changed between the two closely related thefts, the incapacitation penalty is not open to the simple arithmetic of multiplying the punishment by two, without resulting in gross disproportion even under the State's chosen benchmark."