Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants
§ 8.41 C. Due Process Rights in the Sentencing Hearing
For more text, click "Next Page>"
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.”[181]
[181] Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1204-1205 (1977).
Updates
Ninth Circuit
SENTENCE " GROUNDS " APPRENDI ERROR IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW ON THE BASIS OF FACTS IN THE PRIOR CASE THAT WERE NOT FOUND TRUE BY A JURY OR ADMITTED AS TRUE BY THE DEFENDANT
Wilson v. Knowles, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 383961 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)(habeas corpus granted, vacating Three Strikes sentence imposed in violation of petitioner's right to due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), where sentencing court imposed the sentence on the basis of three facts in the prior case that were not found true by a jury or admitted as true by the defendant).
SENTENCE " GROUNDS " APPRENDI ERROR IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW ON THE BASIS OF FACTS IN THE PRIOR CASE THAT WERE NOT FOUND TRUE BY A JURY OR ADMITTED AS TRUE BY THE DEFENDANT
Wilson v. Knowles, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 383961 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)(habeas corpus granted, vacating Three Strikes sentence imposed in violation of petitioner's right to due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), where sentencing court imposed the sentence on the basis of three facts in the prior case that were not found true by a jury or admitted as true by the defendant).
SENTENCE " GROUNDS " APPRENDI ERROR IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW ON THE BASIS OF FACTS IN THE PRIOR CASE THAT WERE NOT FOUND TRUE BY A JURY OR ADMITTED AS TRUE BY THE DEFENDANT
Wilson v. Knowles, 631 F.3d 1295, 2011 WL 383961 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)(habeas corpus granted, vacating Three Strikes sentence imposed in violation of petitioner's right to due process under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), where sentencing court imposed the sentence on the basis of three facts in the prior case that were not found true by a jury or admitted as true by the defendant).
Other
CAL POST CON " PLEA BARGAINING " JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT
People v. Clancey, 202 Cal.App.4th 790 (Cal.App. Jan. 10, 2012) (trial court's offered sentence was not proper because it was: 1) conditioned on the defendant pleading to all counts and admitting all allegations, and 2) operated as a commitment by the judge to impose the offered sentence or to allow the defendant to withdraw the pleas and admissions).
