24 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 25,425 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”
  2. People v. Chun

    45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 941 times
    Holding that Cal. Penal Code § 246 cannot be a predicate offense to support second-degree felony-murder conviction
  3. People v. Anderson

    51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 466 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
  4. People v. Mil

    53 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 299 times
    Adopting prejudice test and rejecting per se reversal for instructions that omit multiple elements of a criminal offense
  5. People v. Perez

    35 Cal.4th 1219 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that prior pattern instruction correctly states the law
  6. People v. Boyce

    59 Cal.4th 672 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 250 times
    Finding forfeiture where defendant did not lodge objections to imposition of consecutive sentences
  7. People v. Bacon

    50 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 210 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
  8. People v. Williams

    57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 185 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.
  9. People v. Valenti

    243 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 154 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"
  10. People v. Bailey

    54 Cal.4th 740 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 129 times
    In Bailey, "the case was tried solely as an escape, the trial court did not instruct on attempt to escape, and the jury was never required to make a finding of specific intent to escape.... Because the crime of attempt to escape is not necessarily included in the offense of escape under the elements test, the jury, by finding defendant guilty of escape, did not impliedly find all the elements of the attempt offense."
  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 2,600 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

  12. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 15 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