specially concurring.

I concur only under compulsion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrade. I believe the sentence is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.

dissenting in part.

In good conscience, I cannot vote to go along with the sentence imposed in this case.

MEMORANDUM **

Fredrick D. Turner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Turner challenges his California conviction and 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001), we affirm.

Turner contends that his 27-years-to-life sentence for receipt of stolen property constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We cannot agree.

Under California’s three-strikes law, the state court’s refusal to reduce Turner’s conviction to a misdemeanor was within its discretion. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003). Because Turner has at least two prior violent or serious felonies, he received a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 667(e)(2)(A).1 The State of California *648is entitled to punish recidivists more harshly than first-time offenders. See Ewing, 123 S.Ct. at 1190. Although Turner’s sentence is severe, we cannot say that it violates the Eighth Amendment. See Id. at 1189-90.

Because the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the district court properly denied Turner’s § 2254 petition. See Lockyer v. Andrade, —U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (upholding state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft).

AFFIRMED.2