§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DOWL

Appellant’s Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,575 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  2. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

    526 U.S. 838 (1999)   Cited 17,793 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,463 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,640 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  5. People v. Ochoa

    6 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 2,792 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding evidence of prior convictions for driving under influence, probation and alcohol abuse classes admissible to show gross negligence because it demonstrates defendant's subjective awareness of risks of driving under influence

  6. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,674 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  7. People v. Hernandez

    33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,329 times
    Holding the prosecution may utilize expert testimony about gang culture and habits to establish the elements of a gang allegation

  8. People v. Catlin

    26 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,399 times
    Ruling the legislative preference for a single jury was not inherently unfair, even in a prior-murder special-circumstance capital case

  9. People v. Brown

    182 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 505 times
    Holding amendments are retroactive

  10. People v. Rodriguez

    183 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 414 times
    Finding no retroactive application

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

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

  12. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,311 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  13. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,109 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  14. Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication

    Cal. R. 8.1110   Cited 2,325 times

    (a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For

  15. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,086 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  16. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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 answer

  17. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)