§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. AGUILAR

Appellant’s Petition for Review

14 Cited authorities

  1. Gray v. Netherland

    518 U.S. 152 (1996)   Cited 4,081 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that procedural default is not implicated for an unexhausted claim until it is established that further resort to state law would be futile, and it is clear that state law would procedurally bar the claims

  2. Brinegar v. United States

    338 U.S. 160 (1949)   Cited 5,590 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[p]robable cause to believe certain items will be found in a specific location is a `practical, nontechnical conception,' that need not be based on direct, first-hand, or `hard' evidence."

  3. Hicks v. Oklahoma

    447 U.S. 343 (1980)   Cited 793 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has a “substantial and legitimate expectation” under the Fourteenth Amendment to be deprived of his liberty only to the extent determined by the trier of fact “in the exercise of its statutory discretion”

  4. People v. Nelson

    51 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 689 times
    Holding defendant forfeited his right to challenge a $10,000 restitution fine on ability to pay grounds because "[a]t the time of his . . . sentencing, the law called for the court to consider defendant's ability to pay in setting a restitution fine, and defendant could have objected at the time"

  5. People v. McCullough

    56 Cal.4th 589 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 633 times
    Holding that a defendant forfeits an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jail booking fee if the fee is not first challenged in the trial court

  6. In re Christopher H.

    50 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 593 times
    Holding that because the disposition order protected the child and promoted reunification, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the parent to participate in alcohol testing as part of the disposition, even though the parent’s alcohol problems did not cause the dependency court to exercise dependency jurisdiction

  7. People v. Pacheco

    187 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 382 times
    Holding a defendant's failure to object to imposition of a booking fee does not forfeit an appellate challenge based on insufficiency of the evidence

  8. People v. Mendoza

    23 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 455 times
    In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.

  9. People v. Crittle

    154 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 341 times
    Holding that the court security fee must be imposed on the count stayed pursuant to section 654

  10. People v. Butler

    31 Cal.4th 1119 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 287 times
    Rejecting contention that case was moot based on Attorney General's supposition that testing had occurred and results already had been transmitted to victim

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary