19 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 4,673 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding in 2012 that mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional
  2. Graham v. Florida

    560 U.S. 48 (2010)   Cited 3,327 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional
  3. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 2,708 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed" because "[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood"
  4. Schriro v. Summerlin

    542 U.S. 348 (2004)   Cited 1,982 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
  5. Tison v. Arizona

    481 U.S. 137 (1987)   Cited 1,066 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement"
  6. People v. Caballero

    55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 516 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 286 times
    Defining "reckless indifference to human life" under California law
  8. People v. Lai

    138 Cal.App.4th 1227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 194 times
    In Lai, the defendant's conduct in fraudulently obtaining aid during the charged period had no causal relationship to his fraudulently obtaining aid before that period.
  9. People v. Ybarra

    166 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 111 times
    In Ybarra, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 1069, the probation report indicated the established sentence for the 17-year-old defendant's crime of special circumstance murder was life without parole (LWOP) and that was the sentence the trial court imposed.
  10. People ex Rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    37 Cal.4th 707 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S121009. December 22, 2005. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. KC036109, Conrad Richard Aragon, Judge. Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk Rabin, Marc Haber, Chandra Miller Fienen; Dechert LLP and H. Joseph Escher III for Defendant and Appellant. Fred J. Hiestand for The Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Mayer, Brown, Rowe Maw, Kenneth S. Geller and Donald M. Falk for The Product Liability Advisory Council as Amicus

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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

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

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)