§Why CasetextPricing

BUTLER

Amicus Curiae Brief of USC Gould School of Law

17 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. United States

    576 U.S. 591 (2015)   Cited 14,211 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding residual clause unconstitutionally vague

  2. Atkins v. Virginia

    536 U.S. 304 (2002)   Cited 3,124 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

  3. Solem v. Helm

    463 U.S. 277 (1983)   Cited 4,003 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a recidivist with seven underlying nonviolent felonies violated the Eighth Amendment

  4. Rummel v. Estelle

    445 U.S. 263 (1980)   Cited 2,667 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Texas's recidivist statute did not violate the Eighth Amendment and declining to engage in "extensive intrusion into the basic line-drawing process that is pre-eminently the province of the legislature when it makes an act criminal"

  5. Coker v. Georgia

    433 U.S. 584 (1977)   Cited 885 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding capital punishment for the rape of a woman unconstitutional where “[a]t no time in the last 50 years have a majority of the States authorized death as a punishment for rape”

  6. In re Dannenberg

    34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 650 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a California prisoner has no right to a release date prior to being deemed suitable for parole because state law does not provide such a right

  7. People v. Jefferson

    21 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that the minimum 15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement

  8. In re Rodriguez

    14 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding sentence was cruel and unusual punishment where defendant had served 22 years for a nonviolent act of child molestation

  9. Section 189 - Murder of the first degree

    Cal. Pen. Code § 189   Cited 6,901 times
    Providing that malice may be express or implied – with implied malice being, e.g. , "when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart"

  10. Section 190.2 - Penalty for defendant found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstance

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190.2   Cited 5,943 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder

  11. Section 190 - Punishment

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190   Cited 1,315 times
    Concerning homicide

  12. Section 3046 - Parole of prisoner imprisoned under life sentence

    Cal. Pen. Code § 3046   Cited 560 times
    Setting minimum terms for "prisoner imprisoned under a life sentence"

  13. Section 1168 - Sentencing

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1168   Cited 461 times
    Providing for indeterminate sentencing

  14. Section 3040 - Parole outside prison walls; camps for paroled prisoners

    Cal. Pen. Code § 3040   Cited 137 times

    The Board of Parole Hearings shall have the power to allow prisoners imprisoned in the state prisons pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168 to go upon parole outside the prison walls and enclosures. The board may parole prisoners in the state prisons to camps for paroled prisoners established under Section 2792. Ca. Pen. Code § 3040 Amended by Stats 2023 ch 311 (SB 883),s 11, eff. 1/1/2024. Amended by Stats. 1979, Ch. 255.

  15. Section 3020 - Assessments of inmates

    Cal. Pen. Code § 3020   Cited 50 times

    The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall conduct assessments of all inmates that include, but are not limited to, data regarding the inmate's history of substance abuse, medical and mental health, education, family background, criminal activity, service in the United States military, and social functioning. The assessments shall be used to place the inmate in programs that will aid in his or her reentry to society and that will most likely reduce the inmate's chances of reoffending

  16. Section 2281 - Determination of Suitability

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2281   Cited 317 times
    Finding of suitability for release is better when “[i]nstitutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release”

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,153 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