431 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,093 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"
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,583 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 16,599 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 77,383 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 19,874 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  6. Bell v. Cone

    535 U.S. 685 (2002)   Cited 9,762 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”
  7. Anders v. California

    386 U.S. 738 (1967)   Cited 77,480 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when counsel determines that a criminal defendant's case is "wholly frivolous," counsel must "so advise the court and request permission to withdraw"
  8. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,289 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"
  9. Roe v. Flores-Ortega

    528 U.S. 470 (2000)   Cited 5,705 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"
  10. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,991 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”
  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,304 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
  12. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,100 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
  13. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,771 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 1,397 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
  15. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. I § 13   Cited 1,164 times
    Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"
  16. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,051 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"
  17. Rule 4.406 - Reasons

    Cal. R. 4.406   Cited 314 times

    (a)How given If the sentencing judge is required to give reasons for a sentence choice, the judge must state in simple language the primary factor or factors that support the exercise of discretion. The statement need not be in the language of the statute or these rules. It must be delivered orally on the record. The court may give a single statement explaining the reason or reasons for imposing a particular sentence or the exercise of judicial discretion, if the statement identifies the sentencing

  18. 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