35 Cited authorities

  1. Morrissey v. Brewer

    408 U.S. 471 (1972)   Cited 9,349 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the minimum requirements of due process" in a parole revocation proceeding include "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses"
  2. Collins v. Youngblood

    497 U.S. 37 (1990)   Cited 1,771 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding change in State law allowing reformation of improper criminal verdicts 35 not to violate Ex Post Facto clause
  3. California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales

    514 U.S. 499 (1995)   Cited 1,323 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statutory change did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it “introduced the possibility that after the initial parole hearing, the Board would not have to hold another hearing the very next year, or the year after that, if it found no reasonable probability that respondent would be deemed suitable for parole in the interim period” and was passed “merely to relieve the Board from the costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hearings for prisoners who have no reasonable chance of being released”
  4. Weaver v. Graham

    450 U.S. 24 (1981)   Cited 2,257 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a criminal law to be ex post facto, it must disadvantage the offender affected by it
  5. Garner v. Jones

    529 U.S. 244 (2000)   Cited 888 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when retroactive change in parole law does not by its own terms show risk of prolonging inmate's incarceration, to show ex post facto violation, inmate must demonstrate new law's retroactive application will result in longer period of incarceration than under earlier rule
  6. Miller v. Florida

    482 U.S. 423 (1987)   Cited 1,037 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sentencing court should apply sentencing guidelines in existence at the time of the offense
  7. Carmell v. Texas

    529 U.S. 513 (2000)   Cited 433 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was no ex post facto claim where uncontested assault counts were committed after law went into effect
  8. Himes v. Thompson

    336 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,423 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court should "perform an `independent review of the record' to ascertain whether the state court's decision was objectively reasonable."
  9. In re Lawrence

    44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 800 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the passage of time is a factor the Board must consider when it determines whether a prisoner is currently dangerous and, thus, unsuitable for parole
  10. In re Rosenkrantz

    29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 765 times
    Holding that Governor's reversal of parole grant is subject to state judicial review
  11. Section 2402 - Determination of Suitability

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2402   Cited 546 times
    Noting that a factor favoring an unsuitability determination exists where "[t]he motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense"
  12. Section 2281 - Determination of Suitability

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2281   Cited 172 times
    Finding of suitability for release is better when “[i]nstitutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release”
  13. Rule 8.528 - Disposition

    Cal. R. 8.528   Cited 421 times

    (a) Normal disposition After review, the Supreme Court normally will affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but may order another disposition. (b) Dismissal of review (1) The Supreme Court may dismiss review. The clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly send an order dismissing review to all parties and the Court of Appeal. (2) When the Court of Appeal receives an order dismissing review, the decision of that court is final and its clerk/executive officer

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 217 times

    (a) Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the