§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CABALLERO

Appellant's Petition for Review

17 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,894 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. Graham v. Florida

    560 U.S. 48 (2010)   Cited 4,410 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  3. Drope v. Missouri

    420 U.S. 162 (1975)   Cited 2,908 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency

  4. People v. Stanley

    10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 2,196 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding admission of evidence of a car arson as an offense that "involved an implied threat of violence against a person"

  5. People v. Gray

    37 Cal.4th 168 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 886 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Approving 338-day hiatus between guilt and penalty phases of trial while defendant appealed guilty verdict; hiatus occurred at a natural breaking point

  6. People v. Bonilla

    41 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 815 times
    Finding gender-neutral reasons in the record for the excusal of numerous female prospective jurors where prosecutor explained only one such strike and trial court found no prima facie Wheeler/ Batson case

  7. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 991 times
    Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge

  8. People v. Bradford

    14 Cal.4th 1005 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 805 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a challenge on direct appeal to the legality of the method of execution for a death sentence must be "rejected out of hand" because it does not challenge "the validity of the sentence itself"

  9. People v. Gonzalez

    51 Cal.3d 1179 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 727 times
    Holding that the “bare filing” of a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not trigger a right to discovery because a habeas corpus petition that fails to state a prima facie case for relief creates no cause or proceeding that would confer discovery jurisdiction

  10. People v. Ramos

    34 Cal.4th 494 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 439 times
    In Ramos, supra, 34 Cal.4th 494, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575, 101 P.3d 478, a newspaper reporter interviewed the defendant about the charges pending against him.

  11. Rule 8.1100 - Authority

    Cal. R. 8.1100   Cited 417 times

    The rules governing the publication of appellate opinions are adopted by the Supreme Court under section 14 of article VI of the California Constitution and published in the California Rules of Court at the direction of the Judicial Council. Cal. R. Ct. 8.1100 Rule 8.1100 adopted effective 1/1/2007.

  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