§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SCOTT (ROYCE LYN)

Appellant’s Opening Brief

469 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 48,528 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,650 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”

  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,617 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 77,647 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 19,981 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  6. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,483 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence

  7. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,242 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  8. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 5,510 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

  9. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,293 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"

  10. Almendarez-Torres v. United States

    523 U.S. 224 (1998)   Cited 6,537 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,117 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  13. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,776 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 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,056 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  16. Section 200.030 - Degrees of murder; penalties

    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.030   Cited 588 times
    Outlining willful, deliberate, and premediated killing and felony murder as theories of first-degree murder

  17. Section 3591 - Sentence of death

    18 U.S.C. § 3591   Cited 539 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"

  18. Section 45-5-102 - Deliberate homicide

    Mont. Code § 45-5-102   Cited 80 times

    (1) A person commits the offense of deliberate homicide if: (a) the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being; (b) the person attempts to commit, commits, or is legally accountable for the attempt or commission of robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, arson, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, felonious escape, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, or any other forcible felony and in the course of the forcible felony or flight thereafter, the person

  19. Section 46-18-303 - Aggravating circumstances

    Mont. Code § 46-18-303   Cited 12 times

    Aggravating circumstances are any of the following: (1) (a) The offense was deliberate homicide and was committed: (i) by an offender while in official detention, as defined in 45-2-101; (ii) by an offender who had been previously convicted of another deliberate homicide; (iii) by means of torture; (iv) by an offender lying in wait or ambush; (v) as a part of a scheme or operation that, if completed, would result in the death of more than one person; or (vi) by an offender during the course of committing

  20. Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation

    Cal. R. 4.421   Cited 2,343 times

    Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;

  21. Rule 4.420 - Selection of term of imprisonment for offense

    Cal. R. 4.420   Cited 877 times

    (a) When a judgment of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a judgment of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must, in their sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b). (b) The court may only choose an upper term when (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of an upper term, and (2) the facts underlying those circumstances have been (i) stipulated

  22. Rule 4.425 - Factors affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences

    Cal. R. 4.425   Cited 692 times

    Factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences include: (a)Facts relating to crimes Facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or (3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant

  23. Rule 4.405 - Definitions

    Cal. R. 4.405   Cited 122 times

    As used in this division, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "These rules" means the rules in this division. (2) "Base term" is the determinate or indeterminate sentence imposed for the commission of a crime, not including any enhancements that carry an additional term of imprisonment. (3) When a person is convicted of two or more felonies, the "principal term" is the greatest determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any of the crimes, including any term imposed for applicable

  24. Rule 4.426 - Violent sex crimes

    Cal. R. 4.426   Cited 55 times

    (a) Multiple violent sex crimes When a defendant has been convicted of multiple violent sex offenses as defined in section 667.6, the sentencing judge must determine whether the crimes involved separate victims or the same victim on separate occasions. (1) Different victims If the crimes were committed against different victims, a full, separate, and consecutive term must be imposed for a violent sex crime as to each victim, under section 667.6(d). (2)Same victim, separate occasions If the crimes