34 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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”
Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817 (2010) Cited 7,003 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)
Descamps v. United States
570 U.S. 254 (2013) Cited 4,954 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may look only to the statutory definitions—i.e ., the elements—of a defendant’s prior offenses"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,640 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
United States v. Gaudin
515 U.S. 506 (1995) Cited 1,657 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury must decide whether a false statement under § 1001 is "material"
People v. Harvey
25 Cal.3d 754 (Cal. 1979) Cited 1,940 times
Holding that a court may not consider facts underlying a dismissed count for purposes of aggravating or enhancing a defendant's sentence
People v. Osuna
225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 439 times
Holding the correct standard of proof for resentencing eligibility determinations is preponderance of the evidence
People v. Johnson
61 Cal.4th 674 (Cal. 2015) Cited 380 times
Explaining that we construe a provision's words in the context of the statutory scheme to determine meaning and also whether the language is ambiguous
People v. Conley
63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) Cited 366 times
Holding that Proposition 36 relief was not available on direct appeal
People v. McGee
38 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2006) Cited 487 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial court's inquiry into whether a prior conviction qualified as a “serious felony” for purposes of California's Three Strikes law does not violate the federal constitutional right to a jury determination for facts increasing sentence

PEOPLE v. ESTRADA

34 Cited authorities

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”

Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)

Holding that courts "may look only to the statutory definitions—i.e ., the elements—of a defendant’s prior offenses"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that a jury must decide whether a false statement under § 1001 is "material"

Holding that a court may not consider facts underlying a dismissed count for purposes of aggravating or enhancing a defendant's sentence

Holding the correct standard of proof for resentencing eligibility determinations is preponderance of the evidence

Explaining that we construe a provision's words in the context of the statutory scheme to determine meaning and also whether the language is ambiguous

Holding that Proposition 36 relief was not available on direct appeal

Holding that the trial court's inquiry into whether a prior conviction qualified as a “serious felony” for purposes of California's Three Strikes law does not violate the federal constitutional right to a jury determination for facts increasing sentence