24 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 37,715 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
  2. Lockyer v. Andrade

    538 U.S. 63 (2003)   Cited 11,073 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pro se prisoner's timely motion for an extension to file an appeal was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal
  3. 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
  4. Johnson v. Texas

    509 U.S. 350 (1993)   Cited 577 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury was free to consider a 19–year–old defendant's youth when determining whether there was a probability that he would continue to commit violent acts in the future and stating that “ ‘youth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage’ ” (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982))
  5. Coker v. Georgia

    433 U.S. 584 (1977)   Cited 882 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding capital punishment for the rape of a woman unconstitutional where “[a]t no time in the last 50 years have a majority of the States authorized death as a punishment for rape”
  6. People v. Mendez

    188 Cal.App.4th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 260 times
    Holding that a sentence of 84 years to life was the equivalent of life without parole under Graham, and therefore cruel and unusual punishment
  7. Meadoux v. State

    325 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 156 times
    Acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (citing Robinson v. California , 370 U.S. 660, 666–67, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) )
  8. Loggins v. Thomas

    654 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 123 times
    Finding Graham applies retroactively because it fit under the Teague exception for “new rules ‘prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.’ ”
  9. People v. Leon

    181 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 117 times
    Upholding an attempted murder conviction as to one passenger sitting in the line of fire of a single shot that killed another passenger, but overturning the conviction as to the passenger not in the line of fire
  10. Jackson v. Norris

    2011 Ark. 49 (Ark. 2011)   Cited 63 times
    Declining to extend Roper and Graham to non-death sentences for juvenile homicide defendants and affirming dismissal of Jackson's state habeas petition
  11. Section 706-656 - Terms of imprisonment for first and second degree murder and attempted first and second degree murder

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-656   Cited 83 times
    Mandating life imprisonment without parole for individuals convicted of first-degree murder or first-degree attempted murder
  12. Rule 4.425 - Factors affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences

    Cal. R. 4.425   Cited 689 times

    Factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences include: (a)Facts relating to crimes Facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or (3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant