42 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,699 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 7,237 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)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,540 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
People v. Holt
15 Cal.4th 619 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,878 times
Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution
People v. Williams
26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001) Cited 692 times
Holding that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur
People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)
215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 446 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing
People v. Aguilar
16 Cal.4th 1023 (Cal. 1997) Cited 701 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a deadly weapon must be an object extrinsic to the human body
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. Maciel
57 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2013) Cited 353 times
Concluding that no reversal was required because even if there were insufficient evidence to support the jury’s true finding of the special circumstance of multiple murder, the jury would have heard the same evidence in support of the prosecution’s alternate theory
People v. Barnes
42 Cal.3d 284 (Cal. 1986) Cited 709 times
Setting forth elements and noting that resistance by the victim is no longer an element of the offense
Section 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment
18 U.S.C. § 3582 Cited 55,247 times 66 Legal Analyses
Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended

PEOPLE v. PEREZ

42 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 the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution

Holding that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur

Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing

Holding that a deadly weapon must be an object extrinsic to the human body

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

Concluding that no reversal was required because even if there were insufficient evidence to support the jury’s true finding of the special circumstance of multiple murder, the jury would have heard the same evidence in support of the prosecution’s alternate theory

Setting forth elements and noting that resistance by the victim is no longer an element of the offense

Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended