Butler v. Curry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the mere fact that there were dissents in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007
• holding that “if at least one of the aggravating factors on which the judge relied in sentencing ... was established in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment,” the sentence itself is constitutional
• holding that Cunningham did not announce a new rule of law under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) and a petitioner therefore is not obligated to return to state court to exhaust his remedies
• noting “our long-standing rule that admissions at sentencing are not relevant to an Apprendi harmless error analysis”
• examining only those aggravating factors actually relied upon by the sentencing judge in determining whether the petitioner’s sentence violated the Sixth Amendment
• analyzing Cunningham in the context of an initial sentencing, not in the context of supervised release

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).