§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CABALLERO

Respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits

121 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,650 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”

  2. Lockyer v. Andrade

    538 U.S. 63 (2003)   Cited 11,101 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 4,408 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  4. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,497 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  5. Atkins v. Virginia

    536 U.S. 304 (2002)   Cited 3,124 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

  6. 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

  7. Rhode Island v. Innis

    446 U.S. 291 (1980)   Cited 6,138 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

  8. Gregg v. Georgia

    428 U.S. 153 (1976)   Cited 6,625 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

  9. Oregon v. Ice

    555 U.S. 160 (2009)   Cited 1,251 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences

  10. Rummel v. Estelle

    445 U.S. 263 (1980)   Cited 2,667 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Texas's recidivist statute did not violate the Eighth Amendment and declining to engage in "extensive intrusion into the basic line-drawing process that is pre-eminently the province of the legislature when it makes an act criminal"

  11. Section 2929.14 - [Effective 6/12/2024] Definite prison terms

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14   Cited 12,246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing the penalty for a felony of the fifth degree

  12. Section 3584 - Multiple sentences of imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3584   Cited 2,406 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to impose consecutive sentences

  13. Section 9721 - Sentencing generally

    42 Pa. C.S. § 9721   Cited 1,869 times
    Reproducing 204 Pa. Code § 303.9

  14. Section 70.25 - Concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.25   Cited 1,659 times
    Granting a sentencing court the power to specify that a term of imprisonment runs either concurrently or consecutively with respect to "any undischarged term of imprisonment imposed at a previous time"

  15. Section 666 - Subsequent conviction of petty theft

    Cal. Pen. Code § 666   Cited 1,714 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting imprisonment not exceeding one year

  16. Section 2929.41 - Concurrent and consecutive sentences

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.41   Cited 1,424 times
    In R.C. 2929.41(B) the trial court is granted discretion to specify that, "[a] sentence of imprisonment shall be served consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment."

  17. Section 669 - Conviction of two or more crimes

    Cal. Pen. Code § 669   Cited 1,168 times
    Requiring that determinate terms under § 667 be served before consecutively imposed life sentences

  18. Section 70.30 - Calculation of terms of imprisonment

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.30   Cited 763 times

    1.[Effective until 9/1/2025] An indeterminate or determinate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of corrections and community supervision. Where a person is under more than one indeterminate or determinate sentence, the sentences shall be calculated as follows: [Effective 9/1/2025] An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of

  19. Section 883 - Concurrent and consecutive sentences

    La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 883   Cited 664 times

    If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of the concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the court minutes

  20. Section 35-41-5-1 - Attempt

    Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1   Cited 599 times
    Racketeering Acts 23, 24, 26

  21. Rule 4.409 - Consideration of relevant factors

    Cal. R. 4.409   Cited 170 times

    Relevant factors enumerated in these rules must be considered by the sentencing judge, and will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise. Cal. R. Ct. 4.409 Rule 4.409 amended effective 1/1/2018; amended effective 1/1/2007; adopted as rule 409 effective 7/1/1977; previously renumbered effective 1/1/2001. Advisory Committee Comment Relevant factors are those applicable to the facts in the record of the case; not all factors will be relevant to each case.