§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. WYATT

Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

50 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,880 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

  2. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,311 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

  3. Harmelin v. Michigan

    501 U.S. 957 (1991)   Cited 4,866 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence

  4. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,648 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  5. Montana v. Egelhoff

    518 U.S. 37 (1996)   Cited 1,306 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the exclusion of even relevant evidence does not violate due process unless it implicates a "fundamental principle of justice"

  6. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,290 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

  7. People v. Breverman

    19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,871 times
    Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility

  8. People v. Maury

    30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 2,550 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal

  9. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,696 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  10. People v. Ledesma

    43 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 2,835 times
    Holding that counsel was prejudicially ineffective for failure to investigate mental illness evidence despite expert's report stating that defendant was competent to stand trial because report raised other issues

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,776 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  13. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,409 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  14. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 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

  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

  16. 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)