28 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Mitchell

    26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,350 times
    Noting that a certified abstract of judgment "constitutes the commitment" and serves as "the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect"
  2. People v. Deloza

    18 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 604 times
    Decrying multi-century sentences as oblivious to life expectancy tables
  3. People v. Zackery

    147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 434 times
    In Zackery, the court of appeal vacated the defendant's sentence on one count because the defendant never changed his plea of not guilty to that count.
  4. People v. Jones

    103 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 438 times
    In Jones, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 267, the defendant was convicted of premeditated attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
  5. People v. Bell

    49 Cal.3d 502 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 352 times
    Recognizing that "[w]ere statistical evidence of recurring disparity alone adequate to establish a prima facie violation of the cross-section guaranty, the third prong of the Duren test would be surplusage," and further noting that "[b]y including as an element of a prima facie case a demonstration that the disparity is caused by `systematic exclusion' of members of the underrepresented group, the Supreme Court clearly intended to require more"
  6. People v. Garcia

    167 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 188 times
    In Garcia, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, the defendant committed two armed robberies and was arrested later the same day with the gun in his jacket.
  7. People v. Britt

    32 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 213 times
    In Britt, supra, 32 Cal.4th 944, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 87 P.3d 812, this court did not rely upon or cite the Neal footnote.
  8. People v. Sloan

    42 Cal.4th 110 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 180 times
    In Sloan and Anderson, the California Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that Apprendi requires that sentencing enhancements be treated as elements of the offense.
  9. People v. Pearson

    42 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 291 times
    In People v. Pearson,supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 356, footnote 2, we noted that, "while an expanded definition of necessarily included offenses [i.e., employing both the elements test and the accusatory pleading test] may be appropriate in the context of [conviction of an uncharged offense], there appears little reason to enlarge the meaning of the same phrase as it is used in other situations."
  10. People v. Lopez

    119 Cal.App.4th 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 111 times
    In People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, the court held section 654 barred multiple punishment for the defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, based on his possession of a single loaded firearm.
  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,571 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 217 times

    (a) Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the