No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MORTON R. BERGER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JONATHAN M. GORDON ERWIN CHEMERINSKY KIMBERLY K. CHEMERINSKY Counsel of Record ALSTON & BIRD LLP UNIVERSITY OF 333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Los Angeles, California 90035 SCHOOL OF LAW (213) 576-1000 401 East Peltason Drive [email protected] Irvine, California 92697 [email protected] (949) 824-7722 [email protected] HERB ELY 3200 North Central Avenue DAYMON ELY Phoenix, Arizona 85012 1228 Central Avenue, SW (602) 230-2144 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87012 (505) 248-0370 Attorneys for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), this Court held that a sentence of life in prison, with no possibil- ity of parole, for passing a bad check worth approxi- mately $100 was grossly disproportionate and thus cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), this Court distinguished Solem v. Helm and found that two sentences of 25 years to life, to run consecutively, for stealing $153 worth of vide- otapes were not “contrary to” clearly established law because there was the possibility of parole, albeit in 50 years. Morton Berger was convicted of possessing 20 photographs of child pornography and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison for each, to run consecutively, with no possibility of parole. His sentence is thus 200 years in prison with no possibility of parole. This case thus poses the following issues: 1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in ruling, contrary to other state and federal courts, that the cumulative sentence is not to be considered in determining whether his sentence is cruel and unu- sual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amend- ment. 2. Whether in light of this Court’s consistent holdings that grossly disproportionate punishments violate the Eighth Amendment, the Arizona Supreme ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED – Continued Court’s decision upholding a 200-year mandatory sentence, with no possibility of parole, for the posses- sion of 20 images of child pornography is “contrary to” or an “unreasonable” application of clearly estab- lished federal law. iii LIST OF PARTIES The name of the Petitioner is: Morton R. Berger The names of the Respondents are: Tom Horne, Attorney General of the State of Arizona Charles Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i LIST OF PARTIES ............................................... iii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 7 I. This Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Conflict Among the Lower Courts, and An Issue Of National Im- portance, As To Whether the Aggregate Sentence For Multiple Convictions Is To Be Considered In Deciding Whether the Punishment Is Grossly Disproportionate and Thus Cruel and Unusual Punish- ment ........................................................... 7 A. Grossly Disproportionate Sentences Violate the Cruel and Unusual Pun- ishments Clause Of the Eighth Amendment ......................................... 8 B. This Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Split Among the Lower Courts and An Issue Of National Im- portance As To Whether Gross Dis- proportionality Is To Be Determined Based On the Aggregate Sentence Imposed ............................................... 9 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page II. The Court Should Grant Review To Resolve a Conflict Between the Arizona Supreme Court Decision and the Rulings Of This Court As To Whether a Sentence Of 200 Years In Prison, With No Possibil- ity Of Parole, For Possessing 20 Pictures Of Child Pornography Is Cruel and Unu- sual Punishment In Violation Of the Eighth Amendment ................................... 13 A. Berger’s 200-Year Sentence Leads To An Inference Of Gross Disproportion- ality ...................................................... 14 B. Berger’s Sentence For This Crime Is By Far the Longest That Could Be Imposed In the Nation ........................ 18 C. Arizona’s Sentence For This Crime Is More Severe Than Sentences Imposed In Arizona For Arguably More Seri- ous and Violent Crimes. ...................... 23 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page FEDERAL CASES Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) ....................... 8 Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ............................... 24 Berger v. Arizona, 549 U.S. 1252 (2007) ...................... 6 Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 (1932) ............. 15 Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) ............... 9, 15 Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) ............ 8, 16 Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) ....................................................... 9, 14, 15, 18 Hawkins v. Hargett, 200 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 10 Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) ..................... 14 Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) ........ 11 Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) ..................... 16 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) ....... 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 United States v. Aiello, 864 F.2d 257 (2d Cir. 1988) ....... 10 United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 22, 23 United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 11 United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 16 United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 11 Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) .............. 8 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page STATE CASES McGervey v. State, 114 Nev. 460, 958 P.2d 1203 (1998) ....................................................................... 21 Miles v. State, 51 So.2d 214 (Miss. 1951) ................... 21 State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1999) ............ 11 State v. Berger, 209 Ariz. 386, 103 P.3d 298 (Ct. App. 2004) .................................................. 2, 4, 5, 20 State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473, 134 P.3d 378 (2006) .............................................................. passim State v. Buchhold, 727 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 2007) ........ 11 State v. Christensen, 663 N.W.2d 691 (S.D. 2003) ...... 20 State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377, 79 P.3d 64 (2003) .......... 4 State v. DiPiano, 187 Ariz. 41, 926 P.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1995) ................................................................. 4 State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St. 3d 176, 846 N.E.2d 824 (2006) ................................................................ 11 FEDERAL STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 2252 ......................................................... 21 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ........................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ........................................................... 6 STATE STATUTES Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-604.01 ............... passim Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-705 .............................. 2 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-710 ............................ 23 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1406 .......................... 23 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3553 .................. passim California Penal Code § 311.11(a) .............................. 21 New Mexico Statutes § 30-6A-3(A) ............................ 21 New Mexico Statutes § 31-18-15(A)(9) ...................... 21 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. VIII ..................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES Charles Patrick Ewing, Justice Perverted: Sex Offender Law, Psychology, & Public Policy (2011) ....................................................................... 22 Colin Moynihan, Judge Defies Prosecutors on Pornography Sentence, New York Times, May 21, 2010 ................................................................... 16 Jesse P. Basbaum, Note, Inequitable Sentenc- ing for Possession of Child Pornography: A Failure To Distinguish Voyeurs from Peder- asts, 61 Hastings L.J. 1281, 1298 (2010) ......... 17, 18 Melissa Hamilton, The Efficacy of Severe Child Pornography Sentencing: Empirical Validity or Political Rhetoric?, 22 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 545, 571, 584 (2011) ........................................ 17 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, at Table 27 (2010) ......................................................................