Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CALIFORNIA v. RAMOS, 1982 — 459 U.S. 1301 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
CALIFORNIA v. RAMOS
459 U.S. 1301·Supreme Court of the United States·1982
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CALIFORNIA v. RAMOS
No. A-349 (81-1893).
Decided October 26, 1982
[MAJORITY — Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.]
Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Respondent Marcelino Ramos was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in the California courts. The trial judge had, pursuant to state statute, informed the sentencing jury that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole may be commuted by the Governor to a sentence that permits parole. The California Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding on the ground that respondent was denied due process in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 30 Cal. 3d 553, 639 P. 2d 908.
In March 1982, the State of California applied for a stay of the California Supreme Court’s judgment. I referred the application to the full Court, which denied the stay. 455 U. S. 1011. In April, the State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 4, 1982, the Court granted the petition for certiorari, ante, p. 821, and California now has reapplied for a stay. It states that the new penalty proceeding is scheduled to begin on November 8, 1982. Respondent has. stated that he does not object to issuance of a stay.
I have therefore decided that petitioner’s reapplication for a stay pending disposition of the case by this Court should be granted.
It is so ordered.