Calvin Collidge Fears Jr. v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that retroactive application of “Booker does not violate ex post facto-type due process rights of defendants”
• noting that a majority of federal circuits addressing the issue have held that unchanging statutory maximums preclude any ex post facto notice issue
• noting that Booker did not eliminate judicial fact-finding, and that use of the preponderance of the evidence standard for calculating enhancements under the advisory Guidelines is proper
• explaining that the Court was “jointing] every other circuit in holding that [retroactively applying] Booker[ 2 ] does not violate ex post facto-type due process rights of defendants”
• compiling cases which determined Booker should apply retroactively because notice as to statutory maximums was sufficient to comport with due process
• compiling cases which determined Booker should apply retroactively because notice as to statutory maximums was sufficient to comport with due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).