§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GRIMES (GARY LEE)

Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

38 Cited authorities

  1. Greenlaw v. United States

    554 U.S. 237 (2008)   Cited 765 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court of appeals may not impose sua sponte a mandatory-minimum prison term, when errantly omitted from the sentence, absent the government's cross-appeal

  2. Arizona v. California

    530 U.S. 392 (2000)   Cited 834 times
    Holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes

  3. People v. Stanley

    10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 2,196 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"

  4. People v. Ochoa

    19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,595 times
    Holding no entitlement to instruction on involuntary manslaughter based on voluntary intoxication where the defendant approached the victim, told her to be quiet, displayed a knife, took the victim to a secluded area and told her to remove her pants, and when she later asked to put her pants back on he gave permission.

  5. People v. Duff

    58 Cal.4th 527 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 421 times
    Holding that the use of the adjectives "extreme" and "substantial" in section 190.3, subdivisions (d) and (g) is constitutional; the trial court need not identify mitigating factors as such; and reliance on unadjudicated criminal activity at the penalty phase is constitutional

  6. People v. Jones

    5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 670 times
    Holding that certain dual use of convictions is prohibited

  7. People v. Marshall

    50 Cal.3d 907 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 536 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Marshall, the jury was instructed: "[The defendant] was 18 years old when he committed the crimes of which you have found him guilty. [¶] If defendant had been under 18 years old when the crimes were committed, he would be subject to neither life imprisonment without possibility of parole nor the death penalty."

  8. People v. Lightsey

    54 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 265 times
    Holding that statute requiring representation by counsel during competency proceedings did not violate defendant’s right to self-representation and concluding, without identifying any serious constitutional question to be avoided, that the statutory requirement was not satisfied by appointment of advisory counsel

  9. People v. Gonzales

    51 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 259 times
    Holding that a defendant who objected only to the qualifications of a psychological expert, but did not argue that compelling him to meet the expert would violate § 1054, subd. (e), forfeited his Verdin claim

  10. People v. Ashmus

    54 Cal.3d 932 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 341 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ashmus, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of defendant's conviction of the felony of assault with intent to commit rape, but it did not instruct the jury that it had additionally to find beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct underlying the conviction.

  11. Section 2111 - Harmless error

    28 U.S.C. § 2111   Cited 1,179 times
    Directing appellate courts to review cases without regard to errors that do not affect parties' "substantial rights"