§Why CasetextPricing

SMITH v. S.C. (PEOPLE)

Real Party’s in Interest Petition for Review

29 Cited authorities

  1. Richardson v. Marsh

    481 U.S. 200 (1987)   Cited 3,773 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception

  2. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 4,471 times
    Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant

  3. People v. Memro

    11 Cal.4th 786 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecutor's comment to jury during sentencing that life imprisonment without parole was "'legally not worse' than death was accurate as alegal matter, whatever philosophical feelings individuals might have on the subject'" (citing Bloom, 48 Cal.3d at 1223 n. 7)

  4. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  5. People v. Standish

    38 Cal.4th 858 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 94 times
    Finding "a failure to grant [own-recognizance] release pending the preliminary examination in violation of section 859b constitutes an error subject to the general test for prejudice because, unlike the absence of counsel, for example, the error is not inherently prejudicial" and "the error is not one for which the pertinent statute itself calls for dismissal — unlike a delay in the preliminary examination beyond the 10-day period without good cause or for more than 60 days without a time waiver"

  6. People v. Wilson

    60 Cal.2d 139 (Cal. 1963)   Cited 295 times
    Holding that defendant who seeks to reverse judgment of conviction must establish that any error in failing to grant a statutory speedy trial motion was prejudicial

  7. People v. Sutton

    48 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 71 times
    In Sutton, appointed counsel for one of two codefendants was unexpectedly engaged in another trial on the 60th day after the defendants' arraignment, but anticipated that the other trial would be completed very shortly.

  8. Townsend v. Superior Court

    15 Cal.3d 774 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 127 times
    Concluding that defendant was bound by counsel's continuances, requested because heavy caseload had impeded counsel's preparedness for trial, despite defendant's refusal to waive time on the record and demands to court to be tried

  9. Ramos v. Superior Court

    146 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 46 times
    Deferring the question of whether an arraignment on an amended felony complaint starts a new 60–day period under section 859b

  10. People v. Love

    132 Cal.App.4th 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 47 times
    In Love, the court considered whether an out-of-custody defendant who had waived her right to have a preliminary hearing within 10 court days and 60 days of her plea was entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of her first appearance in custody after she failed to appear and the court issued a bench warrant.

  11. Section 15

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

  12. Section 30

    Cal. Const. art. I § 30   Cited 87 times
    Authorizing joinder in criminal cases

  13. Rule 8.528 - Disposition

    Cal. R. 8.528   Cited 2,994 times

    (a)Normal disposition After review, the Supreme Court normally will affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but may order another disposition. (b) Dismissal of review (1) The Supreme Court may dismiss review. The clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly send an order dismissing review to all parties and the Court of Appeal. (2) When the Court of Appeal receives an order dismissing review, the decision of that court is final and its clerk/executive officer

  14. Rule 8.490 - Filing, finality, and modification of decisions; rehearing; remittitur

    Cal. R. 8.490   Cited 1,042 times

    (a)Filing and modification of decisions Rule 8.264(a) and (c) govern the filing and modification of decisions in writ proceedings. (b)Finality of decision (1) Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the following decisions regarding petitions for writs within the court's original jurisdiction are final in the issuing court when filed: (A) An order denying or dismissing such a petition without issuance of an alternative writ, order to show cause, or writ of review; and (B) An order denying or dismissing

  15. 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