23 Cited authorities

  1. Greenlaw v. United States

    554 U.S. 237 (2008)   Cited 455 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the "cross-appeal rule, . . . an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party"
  2. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 2,664 times
    Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant
  3. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 8,089 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error
  4. People v. Stanley

    10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding admission of evidence of a car arson as an offense that "involved an implied threat of violence against a person"
  5. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 578 times
    Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge
  6. People v. Montes

    58 Cal.4th 809 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 242 times
    Denying claim that special circumstance finding must be reversed for being necessarily included within another special circumstance
  7. People v. Honig

    48 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 140 times
    Recognizing a party's nominal status as a contracting party
  8. In re M.C.

    199 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 58 times

    No. A129528. 2011-09-29 In re M.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Francisco Human Services Agency, Appellant, v. Felicia C. et al., Respondents. Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Kimiko Burton, Lead City Attorney, and Jennifer K. Williams, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jennifer B. Henning for California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. BRUINIERS Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Kimiko Burton, Lead City Attorney

  9. Superior Court v. County of Mendocino

    13 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 85 times
    In Mendocino, we pointed out that while the courts have inherent power to act in certain areas without specific constitutional or legislative authorization, that does not mean a statute "necessarily violates the separation of powers doctrine whenever it legislates with regard to such an inherent judicial power or function."
  10. People v. Bunn

    27 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 46 times
    In Bunn and King, the California Supreme Court considered whether the Legislature could properly "authorize... the filing of a molestation charge even where an accusatory pleading involving the same offense was previously dismissed as time-barred by the courts.
  11. Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.360   Cited 21 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals 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 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare

  12. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 4 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