Legal Opinion

In Re Hawthorne

California Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 2005No. S116670PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROWN, J.

Petitioner Anderson Hawthorne, Jr., is under a judgment of death. He challenges his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment based on allegations he is mentally retarded. Under the authority of Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) 492 U.S. 302 [106 L.Ed.2d 256, 109 S.Ct. 2934], we denied three previous petitions for writ of habeas corpus raising this same claim. Subsequently, however, the United States Supreme Court overruled Penry and held that execution of the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment. *44(Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, 321 [153 L.Ed.2d 335, 122 S.Ct. 2242]…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. People v. CarpenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. DuvallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. In Re HochbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. People v. SandovalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. People v. BoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. People v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  4. DE JESUS VERDIN v. Superior Court of Riverside CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. People v. TownselCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016

37 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