25 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,786 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"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,646 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
United States v. Gaudin
515 U.S. 506 (1995) Cited 1,657 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury must decide whether a false statement under § 1001 is "material"
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,825 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record
People v. Avila
38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,574 times
Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted
Illinois v. Somerville
410 U.S. 458 (1973) Cited 1,133 times
Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."
Richardson v. United States
468 U.S. 317 (1984) Cited 706 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"
Wade v. Hunter
336 U.S. 684 (1949) Cited 1,167 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment
People v. Marshall
13 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 1996) Cited 803 times
Finding "no possibility the jury could have misunderstood its obligation to assess the relevancy of the reconstruction photographs" where counsel argued reconstruction photographs inaccurately displayed conditions
People v. Anderson
47 Cal.4th 92 (Cal. 2009) Cited 301 times
Explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged "
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
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)

PEOPLE v. CARBAJAL

25 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that a jury must decide whether a false statement under § 1001 is "material"

Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record

Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted

Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."

Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"

Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment

Finding "no possibility the jury could have misunderstood its obligation to assess the relevancy of the reconstruction photographs" where counsel argued reconstruction photographs inaccurately displayed conditions

Explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged "