Black v. California
| Decision Date | 20 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-6793.,05-6793. |
| Citation | Black v. California, 127 S.Ct. 1210, 75 USLW 3429, 167 L.Ed.2d 36, 549 U.S. 1190 (2007) |
| Parties | Kevin Michael BLACK, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Case below, 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
67 cases
-
People v. Guess
...People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal. Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 (Black I), vacated sub nom. Black v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1210, 167 L.Ed.2d 36. The Attorney General contends that this argument is unavailable on appeal, because defendant did not make it in the ......
-
Flores v. Hickman
... ... Roderick HICKMAN, et al., Respondents ... No. CV 06-4299-RSWL(RC) ... United States District Court, C.D. California" ... January 25, 2008 ... Page 1069 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 1070 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 1071 ... \xC2" ... Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 regarding the effect of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. [296], 124 S.Ct. 2531, [159 ... ...
-
People v. Lynch
...Cal.Rptr.3d 745.)12Black II was decided on remand from the high court following its decision in Cunningham. (Black v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 1190, 127 S.Ct. 1210, 167 L.Ed.2d 36, vacating and remanding People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 (Black I).) ......
-
People v. Lynch
...Cal.Rptr.3d 745.)12Black II was decided on remand from the high court following its decision in Cunningham. (Black v California (2007) 549 U.S. 1190, 127 S.Ct. 1210, 167 L.Ed.2d 36, vacating and remanding People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 (Black I)) Sa......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Appendix E
...sentencing, People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 1244 ( Black I ), later vacated sub nom . Black v. California (2007) — U.S. — [167 L.Ed.2d 36], had upheld the California sentencing scheme under Blakely , and Cunningham had yet to be decided. As Black I was still binding precedent 58 Nei......