365 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,386 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,647 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,981 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Tennard v. Dretke
542 U.S. 274 (2004) Cited 5,510 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 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 4,999 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”
Wolff v. McDonnell
418 U.S. 539 (1974) Cited 19,253 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
473 U.S. 432 (1985) Cited 9,704 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,314 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,121 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,117 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,776 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,409 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
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"
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"
Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation
Cal. R. 4.421 Cited 2,343 times
Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;
Rule 4.425 - Factors affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences
Cal. R. 4.425 Cited 692 times
Factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences include: (a)Facts relating to crimes Facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or (3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant
Rule 4.406 - Reasons
Cal. R. 4.406 Cited 318 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
Rule 4.409 - Consideration of relevant factors
Cal. R. 4.409 Cited 170 times
Relevant factors enumerated in these rules must be considered by the sentencing judge, and will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise. Cal. R. Ct. 4.409 Rule 4.409 amended effective 1/1/2018; amended effective 1/1/2007; adopted as rule 409 effective 7/1/1977; previously renumbered effective 1/1/2001. Advisory Committee Comment Relevant factors are those applicable to the facts in the record of the case; not all factors will be relevant to each case.
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

PEOPLE v. BOYCE

365 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

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 “[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”

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"

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

Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

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 declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser

Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"