Legal Opinion

People v. Seel

California Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 2004No. S106273PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

In 1996, we held that an allegation prescribing a greater punishment for an attempt to commit murder that is “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” (Pen. Code,1 § 664, subd. (a) (section 664(a)) constituted a penalty provision to which double jeopardy protections do not apply. (People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652, 656-657 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 732, 909 P.2d 1354] (Bright).) Several years later, in a case not involving double jeopardy, the United States Supreme Court concluded that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases punishment beyond the prescribed statutory…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. People v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. People v. McGeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. People v. BanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  5. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API