24 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
People v. Chun
45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,027 times
Holding that Cal. Penal Code § 246 cannot be a predicate offense to support second-degree felony-murder conviction
People v. Anderson
51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011) Cited 489 times
Finding that CPC § 211 covered scenario in which perpetrator broke into unoccupied car parked in a garage and then accidentally ran over the car's owner while leaving the garage at high speed
People v. Mil
53 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2012) Cited 337 times
Adopting prejudice test and rejecting per se reversal for instructions that omit multiple elements of a criminal offense
People v. Boyce
59 Cal.4th 672 (Cal. 2014) Cited 291 times
Finding forfeiture where defendant did not lodge objections to imposition of consecutive sentences
People v. Perez
35 Cal.4th 1219 (Cal. 2005) Cited 376 times
Holding that prior pattern instruction correctly states the law
People v. Bacon
50 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2010) Cited 242 times
Upholding propriety of instruction that jury could infer consciousness of guilt from efforts to suppress evidence, rejecting contention the instruction was "logically circular" because the jury would first have to resolve the ultimate question whether defendant had committed the charged crimes
People v. Valenti
243 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 185 times
Affirming a section 647.6 conviction where the "defendant kissed and hugged the [victims] on their second meeting," and during an outing placed "each of them in his lap and let them steer the car"
People v. Williams
57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013) Cited 196 times
In People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 (Williams), the California Supreme Court explained that "theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation.
People v. Pearson
53 Cal.4th 306 (Cal. 2012) Cited 137 times
In Pearson, prospective juror C.O. noted in her questionnaire that she could be an impartial juror and it would not be impossible for her to vote for or against the death penalty in any one case.
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,146 times
(a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or
Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae
Cal. R. 8.630 Cited 16 times
(a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or

PEOPLE v. COVARRUBIAS (DANIEL SANCHEZ)

24 Cited authorities

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that Cal. Penal Code § 246 cannot be a predicate offense to support second-degree felony-murder conviction

Finding that CPC § 211 covered scenario in which perpetrator broke into unoccupied car parked in a garage and then accidentally ran over the car's owner while leaving the garage at high speed

Adopting prejudice test and rejecting per se reversal for instructions that omit multiple elements of a criminal offense

Finding forfeiture where defendant did not lodge objections to imposition of consecutive sentences

Holding that prior pattern instruction correctly states the law

Upholding propriety of instruction that jury could infer consciousness of guilt from efforts to suppress evidence, rejecting contention the instruction was "logically circular" because the jury would first have to resolve the ultimate question whether defendant had committed the charged crimes

Affirming a section 647.6 conviction where the "defendant kissed and hugged the [victims] on their second meeting," and during an outing placed "each of them in his lap and let them steer the car"

In People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 (Williams), the California Supreme Court explained that "theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation.

In Pearson, prospective juror C.O. noted in her questionnaire that she could be an impartial juror and it would not be impossible for her to vote for or against the death penalty in any one case.