266 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,509 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,616 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”
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,941 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,996 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”
Harris v. Reed
489 U.S. 255 (1989) Cited 6,557 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,455 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Wainwright v. Sykes
433 U.S. 72 (1977) Cited 8,745 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state procedural waiver of a federal claim will serve to bar to federal habeas review of the claim absent a showing of "cause and prejudice"
Jones v. United States
526 U.S. 227 (1999) Cited 1,898 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,440 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
Section 5 - Salaries of justices
28 U.S.C. § 5 Cited 380 times
Directing district courts to transfer cases "in the interest of justice"
Section 8
Cal. Const. art. I § 8 Cited 197 times
Prohibiting race discrimination

PEOPLE v. COVARRUBIAS (DANIEL SANCHEZ)

266 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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”

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

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"

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”

Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that a state procedural waiver of a federal claim will serve to bar to federal habeas review of the claim absent a showing of "cause and prejudice"

Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

Directing district courts to transfer cases "in the interest of justice"

Prohibiting race discrimination