§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DIAZ

Appellant’s Petition for Review

83 Cited authorities

  1. Harrington v. Richter

    562 U.S. 86 (2011)   Cited 26,238 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

  2. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,509 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"

  3. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,941 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  4. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 11,238 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

  5. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,455 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  6. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,130 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

  7. Heller v. Doe

    509 U.S. 312 (1993)   Cited 2,334 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

  8. Chambers v. Mississippi

    410 U.S. 284 (1973)   Cited 5,973 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

  9. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,722 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  10. P1eople. v. Hill

    17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,796 times
    Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,506 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,832 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

  13. Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication

    Cal. R. 8.1110   Cited 2,324 times

    (a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For

  14. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,085 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  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 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.360   Cited 102 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare