ATDOM PATSALIS V. DAVID SHINN, ET AL, No. 20-16800 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner was convicted of 25 felonies (mostly residential burglaries) committed against multiple victims over a three-month period. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on all but two of the 25 counts, resulting in an overall sentence of 292 years imprisonment.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Rejecting Petitioner’s constitutional claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that proportionality should be assessed based on each individual conviction and sentence, not the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences and that none of Petitioner’s individual sentences were disproportionate. Petitioner argued that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA’s) deferential standard of review does not apply to the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision because that court did not consider the cumulative impact of his sentence and that he was entitled instead to de novo review on this claim. The panel concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals made a merits determination and that AEDPA deference applies.
Applying AEDPA deference, the panel noted that there is no clearly established law from the Supreme Court on whether Eighth Amendment sentence proportionality must be analyzed on a cumulative or individual basis when a defendant is sentenced on multiple offenses, and that other than the basic principle of proportionality, the only thing that the Supreme Court has established is that the rule against grossly disproportionate sentences is violated only in the exceedingly rare and extreme case. The panel concluded that it cannot say that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, clearly established federal law.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief to Atdom Patsalis, who argued that his 292-year total sentence by an Arizona state court is grossly disproportionate to his crimes and therefore cruel and unusual in violation of the Federal and Arizona Constitutions. Patsalis was convicted of 25 felonies (mostly residential burglaries) committed against multiple victims over a three- month period. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on all but two of the 25 counts, resulting in an overall sentence of 292 years imprisonment. Rejecting Patsalis’s constitutional claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that proportionality should be assessed based on each individual conviction and sentence, not the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences, and that none of Patsalis’s individual sentences were disproportionate. Patsalis argued that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA’s) deferential standard of review does not apply to the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision because that court did not consider the cumulative impact of his sentence, and that he was entitled instead to de novo review on this claim. The panel concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals made a merits determination, and PATSALIS V. SHINN 3 that AEDPA deference applies. The panel explained that while the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to analyze proportionality based on Patsalis’s cumulative sentence, it did decide his Eighth Amendment claim on substantive grounds: it heard and evaluated the evidence and the parties’ substantive arguments, rejected Patsalis’s framing of the issue as a cumulative analysis, and concluded that Patsalis’s individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate under the state and federal authorities that it discussed. Citing Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013), the panel wrote that this court must presume that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ conclusion that “Patsalis’s individual sentences are not grossly disproportionate as defined under the authorities discussed” was a merits determination under both Arizona and federal law. The panel wrote that there is no reason to think that the Arizona court overlooked or failed to resolve Patsalis’s claim that his cumulative sentence was unconstitutional. Applying AEDPA deference, the panel noted that there is no clearly established law from the Supreme Court on whether Eighth Amendment sentence proportionality must be analyzed on a cumulative or individual basis when a defendant is sentenced on multiple offenses, and that other than the basic principle of proportionality, the only thing that the Supreme Court has established is that the rule against grossly disproportionate sentences is violated only in the exceedingly rare and extreme case. The panel wrote that Patsalis’s cumulative sentence is undeniably harsh, and the trial court would have been reasonable in imposing a shorter sentence, but the Supreme Court has emphatically instructed that it is not enough that a federal habeas court is left with a firm conviction that the state court was erroneous. The panel wrote that to grant relief, it must conclude that there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the Arizona 4 PATSALIS V. SHINN Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents. The panel explained that it cannot do that given the limited Supreme Court precedent regarding the prohibition against disproportionality of a sentence to a term of years, and concluded that it therefore cannot say that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Dissenting, Judge Christen wrote that the state court’s opinion is clear: it affirmed Patsalis’s individual sentences while expressly declining to consider whether his 292-year sentence was grossly disproportionate. Because the state court did not reach the merits of the claim Patsalis actually presented, there is no state-court decision to which this court can defer, and de novo review is the proper standard. Reviewing Patsalis’s claim de novo, Judge Christen concluded that Patsalis’s cumulative sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offenses he committed, and violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.