People v. Seel
California Supreme Court
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
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- People v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- People v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- People v. McGeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. BanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.