§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MORA

Appellant, Ruben Rangel, Opening Brief

519 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

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

  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,619 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 16,609 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 77,568 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 19,946 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  6. Lindh v. Murphy

    521 U.S. 320 (1997)   Cited 11,044 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statutory language must be "so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpretation" favoring retroactivity

  7. 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"

  8. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,251 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  9. 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”

  10. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,295 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  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 2,107 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 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 24

    Cal. Const. art. I § 24   Cited 193 times
    Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"

  17. Section 30

    Cal. Const. art. I § 30   Cited 87 times
    Authorizing joinder in criminal cases

  18. Section 29

    Cal. Const. art. I § 29   Cited 77 times

    In a criminal case, the people of the State of California have the right to due process of law and to a speedy and public trial. Cal. Const. art. I § 29

  19. Rule 8.200 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.200   Cited 712 times

    (a)Parties' briefs (1) Each appellant must serve and file an appellant's opening brief. (2) Each respondent must serve and file a respondent's brief. (3) Each appellant may serve and file a reply brief. (4) No other brief may be filed except with the permission of the presiding justice, unless it qualifies under (b) or (c)(7). (5) Instead of filing a brief, or as part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal. (Subd (a) amended

  20. 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