196 Cited authorities

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"
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”
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”
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
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,244 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Tennard v. Dretke
542 U.S. 274 (2004) Cited 5,494 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 4,291 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"
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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Section 187 - Murder
Cal. Pen. Code § 187 Cited 19,782 times
Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 28,093 times 1 Legal Analyses
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 Amendment V - Rights of Persons
U.S. Const. amend. V Cited 19,272 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment
Section 12022 - Armed with firearm in commission of felony or attempted felony; use of deadly or dangerous weapon in commission of felony or attempted felony
Cal. Pen. Code § 12022 Cited 8,897 times
Arming of firearm in commission of a felony
Section 12022.5 - Personal use of firearm in commission of felony or attempted felony
Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.5 Cited 8,159 times
Providing for sentence enhancement
Section 190.2 - Penalty for defendant found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstance
Cal. Pen. Code § 190.2 Cited 5,925 times 4 Legal Analyses
Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,396 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
Section Amendment VIII - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
U.S. Const. amend. VIII Cited 9,117 times
Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,109 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (COREY)

196 Cited authorities

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"

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

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

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 error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."

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

Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

Arming of firearm in commission of a felony

Providing for sentence enhancement

Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder

Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"

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

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection