§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CARRASCO

Appellant’s Opening Brief

227 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,620 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. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 37,736 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

  3. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,360 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

  4. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,625 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”

  5. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,610 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”

  6. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,575 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"

  7. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,949 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  8. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,463 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

  9. Smith v. Robbins

    528 U.S. 259 (2000)   Cited 8,540 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"

  10. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,232 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,311 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,109 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  13. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,774 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 1,406 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  15. Section 1239 - Appeal in manner provided in rules; automatic appeal of judgment of death

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1239   Cited 1,046 times

    (a) Where an appeal lies on behalf of the defendant or the people, it may be taken by the defendant or his or her counsel, or by counsel for the people, in the manner provided in rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (b) When upon any plea a judgment of death is rendered, an appeal is automatically taken by the defendant without any action by him or her or his or her counsel. The defendant's trial counsel, whether retained by the defendant or court appointed, shall continue to represent the defendant

  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