§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CENTENO

Appellant’s Petition for Review

74 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,768 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. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,625 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  3. Darden v. Wainwright

    477 U.S. 168 (1986)   Cited 6,566 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

  4. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,644 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  5. Gagnon v. Scarpelli

    411 U.S. 778 (1973)   Cited 5,196 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that probation revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution

  6. Victor v. Nebraska

    511 U.S. 1 (1994)   Cited 1,746 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"

  7. United States v. Tucker

    404 U.S. 443 (1972)   Cited 2,281 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sentence based in part on invalid uncounseled misdemeanor convictions violates Sixth Amendment

  8. P1eople. v. Hill

    17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,801 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"

  9. People v. Cunningham

    25 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 2,379 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error in the exclusion of defense evidence "on a minor or subsidiary point" as opposed to "the complete exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accuseds defense" is subject to review under Watson standard

  10. People v. Frye

    18 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 2,109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in California "one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent"

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,312 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Rule 4.414 - Criteria affecting probation

    Cal. R. 4.414   Cited 524 times

    Criteria affecting the decision to grant or deny probation include facts relating to the crime and facts relating to the defendant. (a) Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime include: (1) The nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the crime as compared to other instances of the same crime; (2) Whether the defendant was armed with or used a weapon; (3) The vulnerability of the victim; (4) Whether the defendant inflicted physical or emotional injury; (5) The degree of monetary loss

  13. 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

  14. Rule 4.411 - Presentence investigations and reports

    Cal. R. 4.411   Cited 149 times

    (a)When required As provided in subdivision (b), the court must refer the case to the probation officer for: (1) A presentence investigation and report if the defendant: (A) Is statutorily eligible for probation or a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h); or (B) Is not eligible for probation but a report is needed to assist the court with other sentencing issues, including the determination of the proper amount of restitution fine; (2) A supplemental report if a significant period