29 Cited authorities

  1. Teague v. Lane

    489 U.S. 288 (1989)   Cited 6,919 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced"
  2. Florida v. Jimeno

    500 U.S. 248 (1991)   Cited 2,100 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that consent to search a car included consent to open and search a paper bag hidden beneath a seat but noting that "[i]t is very likely unreasonable to think that a suspect, by consenting to the search of his trunk, has agreed to the breaking open of a locked briefcase within the trunk"
  3. People v. Wende

    25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 11,581 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that an Anders withdrawal may secure an appellant more comprehensive review by the appellate court
  4. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 3,727 times
    Holding that trial courts may dismiss prior convictions alleged under the Three Strikes Law
  5. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 2,319 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"
  6. People v. Glaser

    11 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 503 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that officers are justified in ordering, at gunpoint, a visitor to a residence about to be searched to get down on the ground and subsequently handcuff him in order to determine the visitor's connection with the residence and ensure officer safety
  7. In re Lance W

    37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 577 times
    Finding that a defendant lacks standing under the California Constitution to challenge the introduction of evidence seized in violation of the rights of a third person
  8. People v. Floyd

    31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 307 times
    Rejecting defendant's assertion that prospective legislation fails rational basis review and noting state's legitimate interests in ensuring "penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written"
  9. People v. Elliot

    37 Cal.4th 453 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 272 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Elliot, defendant was convicted of the torture-murder of a bartender after the bar had closed; he was also convicted of felony murder based on evidence that he "ambushed [the victim] after she closed the bar, forced her at knifepoint into the back room, and then inflicted fatal wounds as part of the attempted robbery."
  10. Adoption of Kelsey S

    1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 408 times
    Holding unconstitutional statutory scheme whereby unwed biological mother could prevent unwed biological father from attaining status of presumed father, whose consent is required for adoption of nonmarital child
  11. Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication

    Cal. R. 8.1110   Cited 356 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

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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