91 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,610 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
Alleyne v. United States
570 U.S. 99 (2013) Cited 8,120 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury
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"
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Shepard v. U.S.
544 U.S. 13 (2005) Cited 4,221 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that when conducting certain inquires related to prior convictions courts are limited to certain judicial record evidence-charging instruments, terms of a plea agreement, or "transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record"
Harris v. United States
536 U.S. 545 (2002) Cited 1,565 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"
Francis v. Franklin
471 U.S. 307 (1985) Cited 2,056 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding a mandatory presumption, either conclusive or rebuttable, as to an element violates a defendant's due process rights because it conflicts with the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
People v. Holt
15 Cal.4th 619 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,872 times
Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution
Section 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment
18 U.S.C. § 3582 Cited 54,248 times 66 Legal Analyses
Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended
Rule 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 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
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 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)

PEOPLE v. PEREZ

91 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 that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury

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 "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"

Holding a mandatory presumption, either conclusive or rebuttable, as to an element violates a defendant's due process rights because it conflicts with the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged

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

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