§
In re Martinez-Zapata

16 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,592 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,956 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,701 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

  4. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,315 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

  5. Almendarez-Torres v. United States

    523 U.S. 224 (1998)   Cited 6,612 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

  6. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 5,054 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

  7. Harris v. United States

    536 U.S. 545 (2002)   Cited 1,580 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"

  8. Lewis v. United States

    518 U.S. 322 (1996)   Cited 203 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's jury trial right does not apply to petty offenses

  9. Williams v. State

    127 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 21 times
    Upholding section 481.134 against a facial constitutional challenge, stating that "[a]ny drug-related activity in the vicinity of a school increases the likelihood that drugs would become accessible to the children who attend the school," and holding that "the 1000-foot drug-free zone imposed by section 481.143(c) is not arbitrary or capricious"

  10. Harris v. State

    125 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding section 481.134(d) not ambiguous

  11. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,778 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

  12. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,950 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  13. Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1227   Cited 8,054 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

  14. Section 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence

    8 U.S.C. § 1255   Cited 2,909 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists

  15. Section 481.134 - Drug-Free Zones

    Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134   Cited 267 times
    Making “an offense otherwise punishable under Section ... 481.121(b) ... a Class A misdemeanor if it ... was committed” near a school