Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. California

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 22, 2007No. 05-6551PublishedCited by 1,052 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Ginsburg

California’s determinate sentencing law (DSL) assigns to the trial judge, not . to the jury, authority to find the facts that expose a defendant to an elevated “upper term” sentence. The facts so found are neither inherent in the jury’s verdict nor embraced by the defendant’s plea, and they need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The question presented is whether the DSL, by placing sentence-elevating factfinding within the judge’s province, violates a defendant’s right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

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

3Cited by1,052 opinions

  1. Rita v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. State v. DorantesTennessee Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Anglemyer v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee BiseTennessee Supreme Court · 2012

1,047 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