Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

California v. Marcelino Ramos No. A-349, No.81-1893 (1983)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: No.81-1893 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 16, 1983
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 459 U.S. 1301 103 S. Ct. 285 74 L. Ed. 2d 19 CALIFORNIA v. Marcelino RAMOS No. A-349 No.81-1893 Supreme Court of the United States October 26, 1982 Justice REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. 1 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 par
More

459 U.S. 1301

103 S. Ct. 285

74 L. Ed. 2d 19

CALIFORNIA
v.
Marcelino RAMOS
No. A-349

No.81-1893

Supreme Court of the United States

October 26, 1982

Justice REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.

1

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 Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

2

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. In April, the State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 4, 1982, the Court granted the petition for certiorari, —- U.S. ——, 102 S. Ct. 1701, 72 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1982), 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.

3

I have therefore decided that petitioner's motion for a stay pending disposition of the case by this Court should be granted.

4

It is so ordered.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer