§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. BROWN

Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

54 Cited authorities

  1. California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales

    514 U.S. 499 (1995)   Cited 1,485 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statutory change did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it “introduced the possibility that after the initial parole hearing, the Board would not have to hold another hearing the very next year, or the year after that, if it found no reasonable probability that respondent would be deemed suitable for parole in the interim period” and was passed “merely to relieve the Board from the costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hearings for prisoners who have no reasonable chance of being released”

  2. Weaver v. Graham

    450 U.S. 24 (1981)   Cited 2,510 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a criminal law to be ex post facto, it must disadvantage the offender affected by it

  3. Lynce v. Mathis

    519 U.S. 433 (1997)   Cited 834 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the cancellation of early release credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause

  4. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,258 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  5. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,249 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

  6. People v. Alford

    42 Cal.4th 749 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 648 times
    Holding that the fee under former §1465.8 was not a punitive fine subject to ex post facto restrictions, and that the trial court properly imposed the fee in effect after the defendant committed his crime

  7. People v. Buckhalter

    26 Cal.4th 20 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 683 times
    Concluding that where, as here, a defendant is resentenced, the sentencing court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the modified sentence; that "a convicted felon once sentenced, committed, and delivered to prison is not restored to presentence status, for purposes of the sentence-credit statutes, by virtue of a limited appellate remand for correction of sentencing errors"; and therefore, that the defendant "cannot earn good behavior credits under the formula specifically applicable to persons detained in a local facility, or under equivalent circumstances elsewhere, 'prior to the imposition of sentence' for a felony"

  8. People v. Dieck

    46 Cal.4th 934 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 416 times
    Recognizing that these presentence credits are collectively referred to as conduct credits

  9. People v. Nasalga

    12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 482 times
    Holding Estrada rule inapplicable to statutes with an express saving clause or its equivalent

  10. People v. Birkett

    21 Cal.4th 226 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 393 times
    Reversing order to divert portions of restitution award from victims of auto theft to victim's insurers, because "victim was entitled to receive from the probationer the full amount of the loss caused by the crime, regardless of whether, in the exercise of prudence, the victim had purchased private insurance that covered some or all of the same losses"

  11. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,418 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

  12. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. I § 11   Cited 148 times
    Limiting state government's power to suspend writ of habeas corpus

  13. Section 21

    Cal. Const. art. I § 21   Cited 130 times
    Prohibiting special privileges or immunities and class legislation