§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. COVARRUBIAS (DANIEL SANCHEZ)

Appellant’s Third Supplemental Brief

4 Cited authorities

  1. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,998 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”

  2. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,937 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  3. People v. Mil

    53 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 337 times
    Adopting prejudice test and rejecting per se reversal for instructions that omit multiple elements of a criminal offense

  4. 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