126 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,075 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 8,901 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 3,557 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses
  4. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 2,895 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 2,797 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the execution of mentally retarded offenders violates the Eighth Amendment
  6. Harmelin v. Michigan

    501 U.S. 957 (1991)   Cited 4,368 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 5,408 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 6,000 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to afford an individual defendant mercy does not violate the Constitution so long as "the decision to impose it [is] guided by standards so that the sentencing authority [will] focus on the particularized circumstances of the crime and the defendant."
  9. Oregon v. Ice

    555 U.S. 160 (2009)   Cited 1,068 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 2,238 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 3584 - Multiple sentences of imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3584   Cited 2,031 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to impose consecutive sentences
  12. Section 666 - Subsequent conviction of petty theft

    Cal. Pen. Code § 666   Cited 1,593 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting imprisonment not exceeding one year
  13. Section 70.25 - Concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.25   Cited 1,522 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"
  14. Section 669 - Conviction of two or more crimes

    Cal. Pen. Code § 669   Cited 942 times
    Requiring that determinate terms under § 667 be served before consecutively imposed life sentences
  15. Section 70.30 - Calculation of terms of imprisonment

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.30   Cited 721 times

    1.[Effective until September 1, 2023] 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 September 1, 2023] An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under

  16. Section 2929.14 - Definite prison terms

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14   Cited 696 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing the penalty for a felony of the fifth degree
  17. Section 883 - Concurrent and consecutive sentences

    La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 883   Cited 536 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

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

    Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1   Cited 493 times
    Defining "attempt"
  19. Section 16-5-1 - Murder; malice murder; felony murder; murder in the second degree

    Ga. Code § 16-5-1   Cited 467 times
    Imposing penalty of death or life imprisonment for murder
  20. Section 42.08 - Cumulative Or Concurrent Sentence

    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.08   Cited 438 times
    Granting Texas judges discretion to order that sentences run concurrently when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses
  21. Rule 4.409 - Consideration of relevant factors

    Cal. R. 4.409   Cited 124 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 January 1, 2018; amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 409 effective July 1, 1977; previously renumbered effective January 1, 2001. Advisory Committee Comment Relevant factors are those applicable to the facts in the record of the case; not all factors will be