§Why CasetextPricing

RICHARDS (WILLIAM) ON H.C.

Petitioner’s Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Clark

    5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 3,135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"

  2. People v. Coffman and Marlow

    34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,734 times
    Finding "[a]ny error in failing to instruct on second degree implied-malice murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated and deliberate first degree murder was harmless, because the factual question posed by the omitted instruction necessarily was resolved unfavorably to Coffman under the instructions on the special circumstance allegations, which required a finding of intent to kill."

  3. People v. Lewis

    46 Cal.4th 1255 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 616 times
    Concluding large restitution fine which would be deducted from portion of any funds given to defendant by his family was not inappropriate

  4. People v. Kelly

    42 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 361 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the flight instruction did not impermissibly dilute the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

  5. People v. Story

    45 Cal.4th 1282 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 324 times
    Reversing the Court of Appeal's reversal for lack of substantial evidence and discussing speculation and circumstantial evidence

  6. People v. Kelly

    17 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 800 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the test for determining the underlying reliability of new scientific techniques as set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

  7. In re Hardy

    41 Cal.4th 977 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 244 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting actual innocence claim where "the allegations ... fail to undermine the prosecution's entire case against [Hardy] or point unerringly to his innocence or reduced culpability"

  8. Frye v. United States

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)   Cited 4,497 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

  9. Ege v. Yukins

    485 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 214 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding due-process violation from admission of bitemark testimony identifying petitioner that was highly prejudicial given that no other evidence placed the petitioner at the scene of the murder

  10. In re Malone

    12 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 147 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a juror's insertion of personal technical knowledge of polygraph testing is misconduct

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,834 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  12. 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

  13. 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)