95 Cited authorities

Cone v. Bell
556 U.S. 449 (2009) Cited 1,802 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"
United States v. Agurs
427 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 7,515 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
411 U.S. 778 (1973) Cited 5,199 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that probation revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution
Brown v. Ohio
432 U.S. 161 (1977) Cited 3,088 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
458 U.S. 858 (1982) Cited 1,502 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his right to call witnesses in his favor “arbitrarily,” the defendant “must at least make some plausible showing of how [the proposed witness'] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”
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
Ball v. United States
470 U.S. 856 (1985) Cited 834 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the proper remedy is to remand “for the District Court, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions”
People v. Reed
38 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2006) Cited 919 times
Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense
People v. Correa
54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012) Cited 716 times
Holding that section 654 does not bar multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same criminal statute and disapproving contrary dictum in Neal v. State of California
People v. Benavides
35 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2005) Cited 851 times
Holding appellate review is not waived where a defendant fails to timely object to an instruction on consciousness of guilt

PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

95 Cited authorities

Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"

Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"

Holding that probation revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution

Holding that double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses

Holding that, while a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his right to call witnesses in his favor “arbitrarily,” the defendant “must at least make some plausible showing of how [the proposed witness'] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”

Holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal

Holding that the proper remedy is to remand “for the District Court, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions”

Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense

Holding that section 654 does not bar multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same criminal statute and disapproving contrary dictum in Neal v. State of California

Holding appellate review is not waived where a defendant fails to timely object to an instruction on consciousness of guilt