Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under Blakely, the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under t
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Cunningham v. California (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under Blakely, the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under t (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- John Cunningham v. People of the State of California (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
docket
| |
JoinDissent
| - Breyer (en)
- Kennedy, Breyer (en)
|
JoinMajority
| - Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| - Defendant's conviction and sentence upheld by the California Court of Appeal; review denied by the California Supreme Court. (en)
|
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Cunningham v. California, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - John Cunningham v. People of the State of California (en)
|
Holding
| - The Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington , applies to California's determinate sentencing law, and requires that the facts necessary to support imposing the upper term of imprisonment under that scheme be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Cunningham v. California (en)
|
majority
| |
other source
| |
other url
| |
has abstract
| - Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under Blakely, the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under the DSL. In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Black, ruling that Blakely applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme. (en)
|
cornell
| |
googlescholar
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |