§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GRAY

Appellant’s Petition for Review

13 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Lee

    31 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 607 times
    In People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 623-24, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176 (2003), the California Supreme Court spoke on the state of mind needed by an order and abettor in an attempted murder case.

  2. People v. Murphy

    25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 337 times
    Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

  3. People ex Rel. Lungren v. Superior Court

    14 Cal.4th 294 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 317 times
    Holding that, consistent with the broad protection for drinking water before it comes out of the tap, a defective plumbing fixture was a "source of drinking water."

  4. People v. King

    38 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 138 times
    In People v. King (2006) 38 Cal.4th 617, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 133 P.3d 636 (King), our Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's argument that instruments coming within that section never could be possessed lawfully.

  5. People v. Soria

    48 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 74 times
    In Soria, the Supreme Court examined the definition of a "case" for purposes of the restitution fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and the parole revocation restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. (Soria, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 62, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 780, 224 P.3d 99.)

  6. Catlin v. Superior Court (People)

    51 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 55 times
    In Catlin v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 300, 307 (Catlin) the Supreme Court rejected the contention that a trial court may deny a section 1054.9 discovery request as untimely.

  7. People v. Watson

    42 Cal.4th 822 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 32 times
    In Watson, a state prison inmate was transported to a state hospital for treatment and eventually returned to the prison.

  8. People v. Municipal Court

    27 Cal.App.3d 193 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 61 times
    Noting that portions of Pol. Code, § 4153 were later recodified in certain Gov. Code sections

  9. People v. Gray

    199 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10 (Cal. Super. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    No. BR 048502. 2011-09-2 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Steven Edward GRAY, Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Sherman M. Ellison and Sherman M. Ellison, Sherman Oaks, for Defendant and Appellant.Dapeer, Rosenbilt & Litvak and Caroline Castillo, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION AND JUDGMENT Law Offices of Sherman M. Ellison and Sherman M. Ellison, Sherman Oaks, for Defendant and Appellant.Dapeer, Rosenbilt & Litvak and Caroline Castillo, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and

  10. People v. Gray

    204 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    No. B236337. 2012-06-20 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven GRAY, Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Sherman M. Ellison and Sherman M. Ellison, Sherman Oaks, for Defendant and Appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Los Angeles, Robert Cooper for Drew Wren as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. KITCHING Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. C165383, Lawrence H. Cho, J., of failing to stop at a red light.

  11. 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

  12. 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)