120 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,644 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 16,615 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 19,967 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 4,292 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”
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,152 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,496 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,474 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,549 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (1991) Cited 4,863 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence
Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation
Cal. R. 4.421 Cited 2,337 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 4.423 - Circumstances in mitigation
Cal. R. 4.423 Cited 548 times
Circumstances in mitigation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Factors relating to the crime include that: (1) The defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime; (2) The victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or provoker of the incident; (3) The crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, that is unlikely to recur; (4) The defendant participated
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. MIRACLE

120 Cited authorities

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 “[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 it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

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

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

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence