56 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,426 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"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,493 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,932 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Woodford v. Visciotti
537 U.S. 19 (2002) Cited 5,980 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state court decision rejecting a Strickland claim was not unreasonable, where the aggravating circumstances of an execution-style murder coupled with another attempted execution style-murder and prior stabbing offenses were "so severe" and "overwhelming"
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,247 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Lockhart v. Fretwell
506 U.S. 364 (1993) Cited 6,839 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,450 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,626 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,276 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
People v. Albillar
51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,665 times
Holding that "if substantial evidence establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members"
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
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
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 8.508 - Petition for review to exhaust state remedies
Cal. R. 8.508 Cited 7 times
(a) Purpose After decision by the Court of Appeal in a criminal case, a defendant may file an abbreviated petition for review in the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. (b)Form and contents (1) The words "Petition for Review to Exhaust State Remedies" must appear prominently on the cover of the petition. (2) Except as provided in (3), the petition must comply with rule 8.504. (3) The petition need not comply with

PEOPLE v. PRUNTY

56 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 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"

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that a state court decision rejecting a Strickland claim was not unreasonable, where the aggravating circumstances of an execution-style murder coupled with another attempted execution style-murder and prior stabbing offenses were "so severe" and "overwhelming"

Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

Holding that "if substantial evidence establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members"