§Why CasetextPricing

KIRCHNER (KRISTOPHER) ON H.C.

Petitioner’s Opening Brief on the Merits

26 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 6,836 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 4,408 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  3. Montgomery v. Louisiana

    577 U.S. 190 (2016)   Cited 3,089 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407, which held as unconstitutional mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders, announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that must be given retroactive effect

  4. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,497 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  5. Teague v. Lane

    489 U.S. 288 (1989)   Cited 7,707 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

  6. Schriro v. Summerlin

    542 U.S. 348 (2004)   Cited 2,206 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"

  7. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,217 times
    Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice

  8. People v. Canty

    32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 246 times
    In Canty, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of transporting methamphetamine, a felony, and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, has been “ ‘convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' ” within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2), and section 1210, subdivision (d).

  9. People v. Belmontes

    34 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 433 times
    In People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335 [193 Cal.Rptr. 882, 667 P.2d 686], the trial court imposed a middle base term for kidnapping plus full consecutive six-year sentences on each of three convictions of sex offenses enumerated in section 667.6(c), reciting reasons appropriate to a decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent terms under section 1170.1 but failing to explain why the court chose to sentence under section 667.6(c).

  10. People v. Guinn

    28 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 135 times
    In Guinn, the Court of Appeal held that section 190.5, subdivision (b) creates a presumption in favor of life without parole for those sentenced under its provisions.

  11. Section 187 - Murder

    Cal. Pen. Code § 187   Cited 19,837 times
    Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."

  12. Section 6-10-301 - Life imprisonment without parole; life imprisonment

    Wyo. Stat. § 6-10-301   Cited 110 times
    Making juvenile homicide offenders eligible for parole after 25 years

  13. Section 3 CCR 714-1-F-1

    3 Colo. Code Regs. § 714-1-F-1   Cited 5 times

    All applicants for licensure as manufactured home salesmen shall be eligible for a Temporary License except persons who have been previously denied a license by the Board on the grounds outlined in Section 12-51.5-117, Colorado Revised Statutes. 3 CCR 714-1-F-1

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  15. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any