{"id":1394,"date":"2019-06-12T08:22:17","date_gmt":"2019-06-12T13:22:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1394"},"modified":"2019-06-12T08:22:17","modified_gmt":"2019-06-12T13:22:17","slug":"gonzalez-v-duncan-9th-cir-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/06\/12\/gonzalez-v-duncan-9th-cir-2008\/","title":{"rendered":"Gonzalez v. Duncan (9th Cir. 2008)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2008)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Gonzalez was convicted after a jury trial for failing to update his registration information within five working days of his birthday. Due to his prior criminal convictions, under California law he received a sentence of 28 years to life, as his failure to register conviction constituted a “third strike.” Gonzalez appealed his conviction in state court, which was affirmed. He then filed a heabeas corpus petition in federal court, alleging that the 28 year sentence was in violation of the Eighth Amendment. District court denied the motion, and Gonzalez appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 28 year sentence for failing to update registration within five working days of his birthday was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n