Apprendi v. New Jersey

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”

Blakely v. Washington

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”

Alleyne v. United States

Holding such finding necessary to trigger higher mandatory minimum

Ring v. Arizona

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”

Hurst v. Florida

Holding Florida's former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"

Harris v. United States

Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"

Boyde v. California

Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)

People v. Banks

Finding insufficient evidence of knowledge of a grave risk of death partly because the defendant did not "knowingly conspire with accomplices known to have killed before"

California v. Brown

Holding that a reasonable juror would interpret anti-sympathy instruction in a way that permitted him to consider all the evidence presented

Southern Union Co. v. United States

Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death

Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Section 190.2 - Penalty for defendant found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstance

Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder

Section Amendment VIII - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases

Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"

Section 775.082 - Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison

Providing a penalty of "imprisonment not exceeding 15 years" for a second-degree felony

Section 190 - Punishment

Concerning homicide

Section 190.3 - Death penalty for defendant found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstance

Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors

Section 190.4 - Special circumstances

In section 190.4, subdivision (e), it provides in pertinent part that, "[i]n every case in which the trier of fact has returned a verdict or finding imposing the death penalty, the defendant shall be deemed to have made an application for modification of such verdict or finding pursuant to Subdivision 7 of Section 11 [ sic: read Section 1181]" on the ground that it is "contrary to law or the evidence presented."

Section 190.5 - Death penalty prohibited for person under age of 18 at time of commission of crime

Prohibiting death penalty for juvenile defendants

Section 190.1 - Separate phases for death penalty case

Providing for trial of a prior murder conviction special circumstance allegation only after a guilty verdict has been reached on the charged crimes

Section 987.9 - Application for funds in capital case

Deering 1985 and Supp. 1992

Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

Rule 8.77 - Actions by court on receipt of electronically submitted document; date and time of filing

Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing