Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: sentenceing in california

It's "Cunningham", not "cutting ham". The name is shorthand for a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision called Cunningham v. California, which held that one aspect of the laws which had governed sentencing in California was unconstitutional.

Before Cunningham, judges were allowed to impose harsher sentences based upon facts which had only been proven by a preponderance of evidence to the judge. The Supreme Court said this was improper and that the prosecutor had to prove any fact supporting an increased sentence beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously announced such a rule in other cases which came from other states, but the California Supreme Court unanimously held that this state's sentencing laws satisfied the requirements the other states' laws had failed. In Cunningham the U.S. Supreme Court said the California court was wrong.

Not to be outdone, the California Supreme Court recently decided two other cases which essentially say that most sentences which violated the rules set forth in Cunningham are still proper, albeit for different reasons. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to take one or both of these cases, so the final outcome remains to be seen.