§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MOFFETT:

Respondent’s Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 6,813 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders

  2. 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

  3. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,489 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  4. Schriro v. Summerlin

    542 U.S. 348 (2004)   Cited 2,205 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"

  5. Tison v. Arizona

    481 U.S. 137 (1987)   Cited 1,345 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state"

  6. People v. Caballero

    55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 603 times
    Holding that "sentencing a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide offense to a term of years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment"

  7. People v. Estrada

    11 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 469 times
    Holding "reckless indifference to human life" does not have a technical meaning and that court has no sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions in the absence of a request when the terms are commonly understood by those familiar with the English language

  8. People v. Lai

    138 Cal.App.4th 1227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 274 times
    Finding of planning upheld despite the fact that the defendant was uneducated, illiterate, and "not a particularly sophisticated person"

  9. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    37 Cal.4th 707 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Considering federal and state case law together in determining what factors were relevant to the constitutional "evaluation of the fine assessed against the defendant."

  10. People v. Ybarra

    166 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 169 times
    Noting that where "photographs in a lineup are of males of the same ethnicity and 'generally of the same age, complexion, and build, and generally resembling each other,' and where the accused's 'photograph did not stand out, and the identification procedure was sufficiently neutral,' the lineup is not impermissibly suggestive"

  11. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,406 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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 answer

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)