No. 21-6229
Kyle Shirakawa Handley v. California
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: apprendi charging-document criminal-procedure due-process notice notice-requirements sentencing-enhancement sentencing-enhancements sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess FifthAmendment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-03-25
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the 1936 rule set forth in People v Britton , 6 Cal.2d 1 -- that facts
which expose a defendant to substantially enhanced punishment need not be
pled in the charging document because they only go to punishment -violates Apprendi, Alleyne and the notice requirements of the common law
incorporated into the Sixth Amendment guarantee that "in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation . . . ."
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the 1936 rule set forth in People v Britton, 6 Cal.2d 1 violates Apprendi, Alleyne and the notice requirements of the Sixth Amendment
Docket Entries
2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-04
Reply of petitioner Kyle Shirakawa Handley filed.
2022-03-03
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2022-01-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 4, 2022.
2022-01-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 2, 2022 to March 4, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 2, 2022.
2021-12-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-01
Response Requested. (Due January 3, 2022)
2021-11-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-19
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2021-11-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 10, 2021)
Attorneys
California
Blythe J. Leszkay — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Kyle Shirakawa Handley
Clifford Gardner — Law Office of Cliff Gardner, Petitioner