§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE R.V.

Appellant’s Petition for Review

15 Cited authorities

  1. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,289 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

  2. Dusky v. United States

    362 U.S. 402 (1960)   Cited 3,982 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."

  3. People v. Ramos

    34 Cal.4th 494 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 439 times
    In Ramos, supra, 34 Cal.4th 494, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575, 101 P.3d 478, a newspaper reporter interviewed the defendant about the charges pending against him.

  4. In re Robert H.

    96 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 308 times
    Affirming order committing minor to out-of-home camp facility rather than supervised probation at home, due to gravity of minor's weapons offense

  5. People v. Medina

    51 Cal.3d 870 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 399 times
    Holding that there was no error where a competent defendant first withdrew an insanity plea, then reinstated this plea against the advice of counsel; the court held that a presently sane defendant has control over this decision

  6. 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).

  7. People v. Ary

    51 Cal.4th 510 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 87 times
    Assuming without deciding that the remedy is available

  8. Timothy J. v. Superior Court

    150 Cal.App.4th 847 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 55 times
    Holding no requirement of mental or developmental disability under applicable statutes

  9. In re Myresheia W.

    61 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 38 times
    Finding collateral future effect of juvenile adjudication on sentencing as adult did not cause a fundamental change in nature and require jury trial

  10. James H. v. Superior Court

    77 Cal.App.3d 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 54 times
    Holding juveniles have a due process right to be afforded a hearing when a competency question arises

  11. Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.360   Cited 102 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare