§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SCOTT

Appellant’s Petition for Review

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Howard

    16 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 438 times
    Noting that court has full sentencing discretion upon revocation of probation in such circumstances

  2. People v. Ramirez

    159 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 252 times
    Holding Howard also precludes upward modification of such a sentence after probationer's rearrest on probation violation

  3. People v. Canty

    32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 246 times
    In Canty, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of transporting methamphetamine, a felony, and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, has been “ ‘convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' ” within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2), and section 1210, subdivision (d).

  4. People v. Clytus

    209 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 45 times
    In Clytus, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 1001, the Court of Appeal held that the Realignment Act applied to a defendant whose probation was revoked and whose previously imposed and suspended sentence was ordered to be executed after October 1, 2011.

  5. People v. Gipson

    213 Cal.App.4th 1523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 43 times
    Rejecting Clytus

  6. People v. Failla

    140 Cal.App.4th 1514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 45 times

    No. E038122. June 30, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FVIVS020297, David Cohn, Judge. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Jakob and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION RICHLI, J. In 1989, defendant entered into a plea agreement

  7. People v. Kelly

    215 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 32 times
    Rejecting Clytus

  8. People v. Flores

    12 Cal.3d 85 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 87 times
    In Flores, the trial court "apparently through inadvertence" failed to determine the degree of the crime at the time it granted probation or at any other time.

  9. People v. Scott

    216 Cal.App.4th 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Agreeing with Clytus and rejecting Gipson, Mora, and Kelly

  10. People v. Chagolla

    151 Cal.App.3d 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 39 times
    Explaining that if a court suspends a sentence on conditions, and any conditions is violated, the court must reinstate the original sentence

  11. 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

  12. Rule 4.435 - Sentencing on revocation of probation, mandatory supervision, and postrelease community supervision

    Cal. R. 4.435   Cited 151 times

    (a)When the defendant violates the terms of probation, mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision or is otherwise subject to revocation of supervision, the sentencing judge may make any disposition of the case authorized by statute. In deciding whether to permanently revoke supervision, the judge may consider the nature of the violation and the defendant's past performance on supervision. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 1991.)