§Why CasetextPricing

STEEN v. APPELLATE DIVISION

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition

24 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Lucas

    12 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,602 times
    Concluding defendant failed to show counsel were incompetent for omitting to move to suppress evidence on the chain of custody grounds

  2. People v. Viray

    134 Cal.App.4th 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 288 times
    Holding that failure of counsel to contest an order for attorney fees did not forfeit an objection on appeal

  3. People v. Woodhead

    43 Cal.3d 1002 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 359 times
    Noting the term "convicted" "may have different meanings in different contexts, or even different meanings within a single statute"

  4. People v. Eubanks

    14 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 176 times
    Holding that the appearance of impropriety alone is not an independent ground for prosecutorial disqualification and an actual conflict must be so grave as to make fair treatment unlikely in order to disqualify the district attorney's office

  5. People v. Chadd

    28 Cal.3d 739 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 221 times
    In Chadd, we read Faretta ’s conclusion that self-representation is "an independent right implied by the structure... of the Sixth Amendment" as not affecting the Legislature's "authority to condition guilty pleas in capital cases on the consent of defense counsel."

  6. People v. Tenorio

    3 Cal.3d 89 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 192 times
    In People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 91-95 [89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993] (Tenorio), we held that a statute requiring a trial court to secure a prosecutor's consent to dismiss an allegation of a prior conviction violates the state Constitution's separation of powers clause by improperly invading the constitutional province of the judiciary.

  7. People v. Superior Court (Greer)

    19 Cal.3d 255 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that district court was within its discretion in disqualifying prosecutor in murder trial when murder victim was the son of a member of the district attorney's staff who worked in the office in which the prosecution was being prepared, and stating that the prosecutor might at least appear to have an emotional stake in the case of the sort which could disturb his exercise of impartial judgment

  8. Randone v. Appellate Department

    5 Cal.3d 536 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 173 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Randone, the California Supreme Court addressed fundamental Due Process rights as they related to a state court issuing a writ of attachment.

  9. Davis v. Municipal Court

    46 Cal.3d 64 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 77 times
    Holding district attorney's decision to charge defendant is within traditional executive authority

  10. Esteybar v. Municipal Court

    5 Cal.3d 119 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 101 times
    In Esteybar, the California Supreme Court considered the question of whether a magistrate was permitted to convict an offender as a misdemeanant without first obtaining the permission of the prosecuting attorney.

  11. Rule 8.1008 - Order for transfer

    Cal. R. 8.1008   Cited 30 times

    (a)Time to transfer (1) The Court of Appeal may order transfer (A) After the appellate division certifies the case for transfer or on petition for transfer, within 20 days after the record sent under rule 8.1007 is filed in the Court of Appeal; or (B) On its own motion, within 30 days after the appellate division decision is final in that court. (2) Within either period specified in (1), the Court of Appeal may order an extension not exceeding 20 days. (3) If the Court of Appeal does not timely order