rejecting a defendant’s contention that the nine-year delay between his sentencing and appeal resulted in cruel and unusual punishment
How later courts described this case
- rejecting a defendant’s contention that the nine-year delay between his sentencing and appeal resulted in cruel and unusual punishment
- abrogation recognized on other 8 grounds by People v. Harris, 43 Cal. 4 th 1269, 1306 (2008). 9 Here, Petitioner concedes that “there is currently no clearly established Supreme Court law 10 mandating the relief Petitioner seeks here.” (Doc. No. 95 at 257.
- applying Walton and specifically rejecting application of Apprendi in capital cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Prieto, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18 (2003)
26 Cal.4th 398, 438 , overruled on another ground in People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 263, fn. 14
Abrogated on other grounds by a later decision
" People v. Ochoa , 26 Cal.4th 398, 454, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78 (2001), abrogated on other grounds as stated in People v. Prieto , 30 Cal.4th 226, 263 n.14, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123 (2003).
12 citing opinionsother grounds
The opinion
KENNARD, J.
I concur in the majority opinion except for its treatment of defendant’s contention that the delay between sentencing and execution violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This court has in the past rejected such a claim, holding that “[a]s long as it is reasonable, the time required for our statutorily mandated review is not a violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights; it is essential to ensuring that those rights are and have been respected.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 477 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ].) Because the delay here is reasonable, this court’s holding in Ochoa is dispositive here. I would go no further.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied September 19, 2001.