§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. S.C. (LARA)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Real Parties in Interest, Office of the Los Angeles County Public Defender and Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

32 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 6,815 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 4,397 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  3. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,490 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  4. People v. Gutierrez

    58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 1,139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that construing a sentencing statute as establishing "a presumption in favor of life without parole [for juvenile homicide offenders] raises serious constitutional concerns under the reasoning of Miller and the body of precedent upon which Miller relied"

  5. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,248 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

  6. People v. Caballero

    55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 603 times
    Holding that "sentencing a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide offense to a term of years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment"

  7. In re Greg F.

    55 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 299 times
    Finding court was within discretion to dismiss later 602 petition, after admissions entered, in order to permit more serious commitment based on later filed probation violation alleging same acts

  8. In re Lance W

    37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 691 times
    Finding that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated § 1538.5, subd.

  9. People v. Nasalga

    12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 482 times
    Holding Estrada rule inapplicable to statutes with an express saving clause or its equivalent

  10. People v. Floyd

    31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 365 times
    Finding no equal protection violation in the expressly prospective application of Proposition 36 providing for mandatory probation for some convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses

  11. Rule 8.200 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.200   Cited 712 times

    (a)Parties' briefs (1) Each appellant must serve and file an appellant's opening brief. (2) Each respondent must serve and file a respondent's brief. (3) Each appellant may serve and file a reply brief. (4) No other brief may be filed except with the permission of the presiding justice, unless it qualifies under (b) or (c)(7). (5) Instead of filing a brief, or as part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal. (Subd (a) amended

  12. Rule 4.410 - General objectives in sentencing

    Cal. R. 4.410   Cited 205 times

    (a)General objectives of sentencing include: (1) Protecting society; (2) Punishing the defendant; (3) Encouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding life in the future and deterring him or her from future offenses; (4) Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its consequences; (5) Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating him or her for the period of incarceration; (6) Securing restitution for the victims of crime; (7) Achieving uniformity in sentencing; and

  13. Rule 4.116 - Certification to juvenile court

    Cal. R. 4.116   Cited 3 times

    (a) Application This rule applies to all cases not filed in juvenile court in which the person charged by an accusatory pleading appears to be under the age of 18, except when jurisdiction over the child has been transferred from the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. (Subd (a) amended effective May 22, 2017; adopted effective January 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Proceduire to determine whether certification is appropriate If an accusatory