§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. VALDEZ (RICHARD)

Appellant's Opening Brief

402 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,646 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

  2. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,414 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,615 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,630 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  5. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,970 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  6. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,292 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

  7. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,260 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,999 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

  9. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,947 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  10. Wolff v. McDonnell

    418 U.S. 539 (1974)   Cited 19,245 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,313 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,114 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  13. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,775 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  14. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,409 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  15. Section 27

    Cal. Const. art. I § 27   Cited 53 times

    All statutes of this State in effect on February 17, 1972, requiring, authorizing, imposing, or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative, or referendum. The death penalty provided for under those statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within the meaning of Article 1, Section 6 nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other

  16. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 16 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or