skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query sentencing returned 156 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
932 KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
872 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
839 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
826 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
785 SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
785 RING V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
785 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
768 RITA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
752 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
733 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
714 UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN
[Syllabus]
714 KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)
[Syllabus]
714 WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995).
[Syllabus]
714 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
695 BUFORD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Deferential review is appropriate when an appeals court reviews a trial court's Sentencing Guideline determination as to whether an offender's prior convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes.
649 SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN
[Syllabus]
624 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
624 WIGGINS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
595 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
595
[Syllabus]
595 ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998)
[Syllabus]
595
[Syllabus]
595
[Syllabus]
595 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
562 DOLAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
562
[Syllabus]
562 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
562 ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
562
[Syllabus]
527 GALL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
527 KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
527
[Syllabus]
527 DILLON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
527 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
527 ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
527 GLOVER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
527
[Syllabus]
527
[Syllabus]
527 APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY
[Syllabus]
Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
527 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
527
[Syllabus]
527 BROWN V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
486
[Syllabus]
486
[Syllabus]
486 HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).
[Syllabus]
486 UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997)
[Syllabus]
486 CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
486 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
486 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
486 MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996).
[Syllabus]
486 BARBER V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
486 MV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
486 RAMDASS V. ANGELONE
[Syllabus]
Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
486 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
434 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
434 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
434 NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
434 DANIELS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
434
[Syllabus]
434
[Syllabus]
434 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
434 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
374 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
374 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
374 UNITED STATES V. HYDE, 520 U.S. 670 (1997).
[Syllabus]
374 DRETKE V. HALEY
[Syllabus]
Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
374
[Syllabus]
374 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
374 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
374 EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998)
[Syllabus]
374
[Syllabus]
374 BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
374 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
374 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
374 NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 284 (1996).
[Syllabus]
374 WALL V. KHOLI
[Syllabus]
374 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
374 JAMES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
374 BRADSHAW V. STUMPF
[Syllabus]
374 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
374 CARTER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
374 WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
[Syllabus]
374
[Syllabus]
374 SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA
[Syllabus]
Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
374 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
374
[Syllabus]
374 LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
296 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
296 CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296 EWING V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
296 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
296 RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
296 UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS
[Syllabus]
The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
296
[Syllabus]
296 LOPEZ V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
296 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
296 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
296 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
296 SMITH V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
296 LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996).
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
296 HALBERT V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
296
[Syllabus]
296 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
187 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
187 RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996).
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187 DEAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997)
[Syllabus]
187 GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
187 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
187 LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996).
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
187 BURGESS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998)
[Syllabus]
187 CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
[Syllabus]
187 SYKES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA
[Syllabus]
Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
187 DV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN
[Syllabus]
1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
187 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
187 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
187 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
187 PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 LOGAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996).
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]
187 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
187 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
187 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
187 DECK V. MISSOURI
[Syllabus]
187 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
187 SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
187 BEGAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187 UTTECHT V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
187 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
187
[Syllabus]