36 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,244 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
People v. Osband
13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996) Cited 2,628 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant received more than he was entitled to when the jury was instructed on the "specific intent" to commit the underlying felony of rape
People v. Latimer
5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993) Cited 1,245 times
Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”
People v. Harrison
48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989) Cited 1,343 times
Upholding separate punishments for three acts of sexual penetration over the course of less than 10 minutes where "each of defendant's 'repenetrations' was clearly volitional, criminal and occasioned by a separate act of force."
People v. Jones
103 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 803 times
Holding that "section 654 is inapplicable when the evidence shows that the defendant arrived at the scene of his or her primary crime already in possession of the firearm"
People v. Perez
23 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1979) Cited 996 times
Finding "assertion of a desire for wealth as the sole intent and objective in committing a series of separate thefts" is overbroad and violates statute's purpose
People v. Hutchins
90 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 451 times
In People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Hutchins), the court rejected the application of section 654 to a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, in a case where the defendant committed a murder using a gun.
People v. Cleveland
87 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 432 times
Sentencing court determines the defendant's intent and objective for purposes of section 654
People v. Britt
32 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2004) Cited 392 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.
Neal v. State of California
55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960) Cited 1,594 times
Holding that defendant who threw gasoline into a bedroom and ignited it could not be punished for both attempted murder and arson because the arson was the means used to commit the crime of attempted murder

PEOPLE v. JONES

36 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant received more than he was entitled to when the jury was instructed on the "specific intent" to commit the underlying felony of rape

Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”

Upholding separate punishments for three acts of sexual penetration over the course of less than 10 minutes where "each of defendant's 'repenetrations' was clearly volitional, criminal and occasioned by a separate act of force."

Holding that "section 654 is inapplicable when the evidence shows that the defendant arrived at the scene of his or her primary crime already in possession of the firearm"

Finding "assertion of a desire for wealth as the sole intent and objective in committing a series of separate thefts" is overbroad and violates statute's purpose

In People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Hutchins), the court rejected the application of section 654 to a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, in a case where the defendant committed a murder using a gun.

Sentencing court determines the defendant's intent and objective for purposes of section 654

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.

Holding that defendant who threw gasoline into a bedroom and ignited it could not be punished for both attempted murder and arson because the arson was the means used to commit the crime of attempted murder