§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. WINBUSH (GRAYLAND) (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

Appellant’s Opening Brief

526 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,359 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,618 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”

  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,609 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”

  4. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,944 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  5. Estelle v. Gamble

    429 U.S. 97 (1976)   Cited 54,697 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons

  6. Graham v. Florida

    560 U.S. 48 (2010)   Cited 4,397 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  7. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,229 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  8. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech

    528 U.S. 562 (2000)   Cited 6,349 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a class of one could challenge different treatment under the Equal Protection Clause where treatment was alleged to be "irrational and wholly arbitrary"

  9. 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"

  10. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,251 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,311 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,774 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  13. Section 2304 - Human rights and security assistance

    22 U.S.C. § 2304   Cited 16 times
    Prohibiting security assistance to countries that practice cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment

  14. Rule 4.420 - Selection of term of imprisonment for offense

    Cal. R. 4.420   Cited 873 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