18 Cited authorities

  1. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,134 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
  2. Schriro v. Summerlin

    542 U.S. 348 (2004)   Cited 2,019 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
  3. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 2,507 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"
  4. People v. Nasalga

    12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 352 times
    Holding Estrada rule inapplicable to statutes with an express saving clause or its equivalent
  5. People v. Howard

    16 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 300 times
    Noting that court has full sentencing discretion upon revocation of probation in such circumstances
  6. People v. Ramirez

    159 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 182 times
    Holding Howard also precludes upward modification of such a sentence after probationer's rearrest on probation violation
  7. People v. Canty

    32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 198 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).
  8. In re J. W

    29 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 123 times

    S100745 Filed November 14, 2002 Appeal from the Fresno County Superior Court, No. 644930-0, David Kalemkarian, Commissioner, Judge. Ct.App.5th F038422. Bradley A. Bristow, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Objector and Appellant. Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petioner and Respondent. KENNARD, J. In 1978, this court held that a reviewing court is required "to appoint counsel for any indigent parent appealing from an order terminating parental rights pursuant

  9. People v. Yartz

    37 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 107 times
    In People v. Yartz (2005) 37 Cal.4th 529, 532, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 328, 123 P.3d 604 (Yartz), our high court addressed whether a prior plea of nolo contendere to a child molestation offense could be used to find the defendant to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under section 6600 et seq., the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA).
  10. People v. Clytus

    209 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 50 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.
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 234 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 76 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.)