55 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,085 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 26,659 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 16,620 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”
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,294 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"
Lockhart v. Fretwell
506 U.S. 364 (1993) Cited 6,856 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,519 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,614 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,446 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
Greer v. Miller
483 U.S. 756 (1987) Cited 1,634 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding no Doyle violation occurs if the trial court sustains a timely objection to the allegedly improper question and instructs the jury to disregard that question
Lowenfield v. Phelps
484 U.S. 231 (1988) Cited 1,275 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the coercive effect of a supplemental instruction must be considered "in its context and under all the circumstances"

PEOPLE v. MYLES (JOHN)

55 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 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 petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement

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

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

Holding no Doyle violation occurs if the trial court sustains a timely objection to the allegedly improper question and instructs the jury to disregard that question

Holding that the coercive effect of a supplemental instruction must be considered "in its context and under all the circumstances"