400 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,363 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,627 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 19,953 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
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"
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,142 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,253 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
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”
United States v. Leon
468 U.S. 897 (1984) Cited 10,234 times 72 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,490 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,636 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Section Amendment IV - Search and Seizure
U.S. Const. amend. IV Cited 26,603 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,312 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,119 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 2,110 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,775 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 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. I § 13 Cited 1,167 times
Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"
Section 27
Cal. Const. art. I § 27 Cited 53 times
All statutes of this State in effect on February 17, 1972, requiring, authorizing, imposing, or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative, or referendum. The death penalty provided for under those statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within the meaning of Article 1, Section 6 nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other
Rule 4.420 - Selection of term of imprisonment for offense
Cal. R. 4.420 Cited 875 times
(a) When a judgment of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a judgment of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must, in their sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b). (b) The court may only choose an upper term when (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of an upper term, and (2) the facts underlying those circumstances have been (i) stipulated

PEOPLE v. SIMON (RICHARD)

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

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 a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

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 when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable

Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

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

Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"