13 Cited authorities

People v. Jefferson
21 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1999) Cited 409 times
Holding that the minimum 15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement
People v. Murphy
25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001) Cited 338 times
Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous
People v. Canty
32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004) Cited 246 times
In Canty, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of transporting methamphetamine, a felony, and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, has been “ ‘convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' ” within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2), and section 1210, subdivision (d).
Curle v. Superior Court
24 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 2001) Cited 170 times
Stating that courts must construe "portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part"
Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.
221 Cal.App.3d 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no cause of action for damages under article I, section 1, because that provision does not impose a mandatory duty on public entities to protect a citizen's right to privacy
Dibb v. County of San Diego
8 Cal.4th 1200 (Cal. 1994) Cited 51 times
Holding that "under section 25303, the board of supervisors has a statutory duty to supervise the conduct of all county officers"
In re Bacon
240 Cal.App.2d 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) Cited 90 times
Docket Nos. 22751, 22752, 22753, 22933. February 8, 1966. APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Alameda County in session as a Juvenile Court, placing several minors on probation without wardship, applying certain rules of conduct and behavior to them, requiring them to report to the probation officer and requiring them to spend four weekends at the probation department's training academy. Robert H. Kroninger, Judge. Orders affirmed. Robert Truehaft, Irving N. Bloom, Joel Goldfarb, John J
People v. Baker
69 Cal.2d 44 (Cal. 1968) Cited 54 times
Concluding that "the Legislature by expressly including relationships between brothers and sisters of the half blood and not so specifying as to more distant relatives has evinced the intention to exclude such persons from the prohibitions of the statute"
People v. Rosales
129 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 4 times
No. B172357 May 9, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA232225, Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Law Offices of Robert M. Ball and Robert M. Ball for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, William T. Harter, and Juliet H. Swoboda, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION MALLANO, J. Velia Rosales appeals from the judgment (order granting probation)
In re Eddie D.
235 Cal.App.3d 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 6 times
235 Cal.App.3d 417 286 Cal.Rptr. 684 In re EDDIE D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDDIE D., Defendant and Appellant. No. F015027. California Court of Appeal, Fifth District Oct. 18, 1991. Certified For Partial Publication Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I.B and III. See footnote *, ante. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] K. Douglas Cummings, Sacramento, under
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,121 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

IN RE M.M.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that the minimum 15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement

Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

Stating that courts must construe "portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part"

Holding there is no cause of action for damages under article I, section 1, because that provision does not impose a mandatory duty on public entities to protect a citizen's right to privacy

Holding that "under section 25303, the board of supervisors has a statutory duty to supervise the conduct of all county officers"

Concluding that "the Legislature by expressly including relationships between brothers and sisters of the half blood and not so specifying as to more distant relatives has evinced the intention to exclude such persons from the prohibitions of the statute"

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"