In Riggs v. California, 525 U.S. 1114 (1999), a memorandum case denying a petition for writ of certiorari, four United States Supreme Court justices expressed concern with the aspect of California's three strikes law that permits a defendant's prior criminal record to play a dual role in the enhancement scheme by first converting a "petty offense," such as petty theft, to a felony and then utilizing that felony to invoke the sentencing provisions of the three strikes law. It is doubtful that possession of a controlled substance falls within the category of offenses that raised concerns in Riggs since it is a felony regardless of whether it is a defendant's first offense or his 10th offense. More importantly, as was emphasized in Riggs, the denial of a petition for certiorari "does not constitute a ruling on the merits." (Riggs, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 1116.) The defendant challenged his 25 year-to-life sentence imposed for a petty theft with a prior, which counted as his "third strike" under the Three Strikes law. (Riggs v. California, supra, 525 U.S. 1114, 142 L. Ed. 2d 789, 119 S. Ct. 890.) Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, denied Riggs's petition for writ of certiorari, stating the Eighth Amendment question was "obviously substantial" but that the question should be addressed first by a lower federal court or the California Supreme Court. The court observed Riggs could assert his claim in federal court because he was "asking the court to apply a settled rule of Eighth Amendment law, rather than to fashion a new rule . . . ." (Ibid.) The defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior and sentenced to a life term under the Three Strikes law. He filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, claiming that his punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. A minority of the justices who voted to deny the petition nonetheless signed a brief opinion stating that the issue was "obviously substantial." (Ibid.) The concerns expressed by the justices in Riggs do not necessarily pertain to appellant's case. The memorandum opinion noted that treating a misdemeanor petty theft as a third strike derived from "a unique quirk in state law," which allowed a prior theft to both elevate the current offense to a felony and render a defendant eligible for a life sentence. ( Riggs v. California, supra, 525 U.S. 1114.) Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concerning the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in a California three strikes case. The case concerned a defendant whose third strike involved the theft of a bottle of vitamins, which, due to defendant's prior criminal history, was treated as a felony, thereby resulting in application of the three strikes law and defendant being sentenced to 25 years to life. Justice Stevens noted that the defendant's claim that his sentence was so grossly disproportionate that it violated the Eight Amendment was a substantial question, "particularly since California appears to be the only State in which a misdemeanor could receive such a severe sentence." (119 S. Ct. at p. 891.) Justice Stevens reemphasized that the United States Supreme Court had accorded state legislatures considerable deference to determine the length of sentences for crimes classified as felonies but noted that "petty theft does not appear to fall into that category." (Ibid.) Justice Stevens also noted that petty theft had many characteristics in common with the no account check for $ 100 in Solem v. Helm. Nonetheless, Justice Stevens noted that neither the California Supreme Court nor any federal tribunal had yet addressed this question and that therefore there were valid reasons for not issuing the writ. (Ibid.) Justice Stevens's opinion was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. Justice Breyer dissented from the denial of the petition, stating that the case "raises a serious question concerning the application of a 'three strikes' law to what is in essence a petty offense." ( Id. at p. 892.)