Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cunningham Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 22, 2007

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

62 entries 3 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Ring Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2002
    Relied / Followed
  2. Blakely Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004
  3. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  4. Syllabus October Term, 2006 Cunningham V. California
    Search
  5. Court of Appeal affirmed. The State Supreme Court denied review, but in a decision published nine days earlier, People v. Black
    Search
  6. a) In Apprendi v. New
    Search
  7. The Court has applied the rule of Apprendi to facts subjecting a defendant to the death penalty, Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  8. s Sentencing Reform Act (Reform Act), Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  9. and facts triggering a sentence range elevation under the then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Booker
    Search
  10. Blakely, 542 U. S., at 313, in People v. Black
    Search
  11. raising questions trained on that matter. Claiborne v. United
    Search
  12. Rita v. United
    Search
  13. Breyer, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Cunningham v. California
    Search
  14. Opinion of the Court Cunningham V. California
    Search
  15. Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-6551 John Cunningham, Petitioner V. California
    Search
  16. maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  17. that court considered the question here presented and held that the DSL survived Sixth Amendment inspection. People v. Black
    Search
  18. Rule 4.420(b), a clear factfinding directive to which there is no exception. See People v. Hall
    Search
  19. People v. Wiley
    Search
  20. this rule is rooted in longstanding common-law practice, its explicit statement in our decisions is recent. In Jones v. United
    Search
  21. at issue to avoid the question, the Jones opinion presaged our decision, some 15 months later, in Apprendi v. New
    Search
  22. Amendment proscribed the enhanced sentence. 530 U. S., at 471. Other than a prior conviction, see Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  23. U. S., at 490. See also Harris v. United
    Search
  24. since reaffirmed the rule of Apprendi , applying it to facts subjecting a defendant to the death penalty, Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  25. s Sentencing Reform Act, Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  26. Brief for Respondent in Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  27. Claiborne v. United
    Search
  28. and Rita v. United
    Search
  29. The Colorado Supreme Court has adopted this approach as an interim solution. Lopez v. People
    Search
  30. State Legislative Responses to Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  31. c) (2005 Supp.). Cunningham v. California
    Search
  32. Kennedy, J., Dissenting Cunningham V. California
    Search
  33. in full, well explains why the Court continues in a wrong and unfortunate direction in the cases following Apprendi v. New
    Search
  34. Jersey , 530 U. S. 466 (2000). See, e.g., United States v. Booker
    Search
  35. Jones v. United
    Search
  36. to develop systems of guided discretion within the general constraint that Apprendi imposes. Cunningham v. California
    Search
  37. Alito, J., Dissenting Cunningham V. California
    Search
  38. any constitutionally significant respect from the advisory Guidelines scheme that the Court approved in United States v. Booker
    Search
  39. same should be true with regard to the California system. I therefore respectfully dissent. I In Apprendi v. New
    Search
  40. see also Harris v. United
    Search
  41. within the broad sentencing ranges imposed by the criminal statutes. Dorszynski v. United
    Search
  42. People v. Black
    Search
  43. People v. Hernandez
    Search
  44. Cal. 3d 194, 205, 757 P. 2d 1013, 1019, (1988) (in bank), overruled on other grounds, People v. King
    Search
  45. In Apprendi v. New
    Search
  46. Sentencing Reform Act (Reform Act), Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  47. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Booker
    Search
  48. John Cunningham, Petitioner V. California
    Search
  49. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  50. See People v. Hall
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial