83 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 146,580 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"
  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 73,855 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  3. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 18,229 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  4. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 56,990 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suspect "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation"
  5. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 14,557 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,359 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  7. Rhode Island v. Innis

    446 U.S. 291 (1980)   Cited 5,775 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred
  8. Johnson v. California

    545 U.S. 162 (2005)   Cited 1,309 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 and Batson standards are different, and that the less demanding Batson standard controls
  9. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,671 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied
  10. Pennsylvania v. Muniz

    496 U.S. 582 (1990)   Cited 1,061 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an officer did not interrogate a suspect by asking him to take a breathalyzer test and explaining the legal consequences of refusing
  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,565 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    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or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

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 305 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

  13. Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.360   Cited 92 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

  14. Rule 8.508 - Petition for review to exhaust state remedies

    Cal. R. 8.508   Cited 7 times

    (a) Purpose After decision by the Court of Appeal in a criminal case, a defendant may file an abbreviated petition for review in the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. (b)Form and contents (1) The words "Petition for Review to Exhaust State Remedies" must appear prominently on the cover of the petition. (2) Except as provided in (3), the petition must comply with rule 8.504. (3) The petition need not comply with