33 Cited authorities

People v. Scott
9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) Cited 3,898 times
Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"
People v. Ewoldt
7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) Cited 2,251 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "least degree of similarity" between two offenses is required to prove intent.
People v. Fosselman
33 Cal.3d 572 (Cal. 1983) Cited 1,055 times
Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his act or omission
People v. Scott
15 Cal.4th 1188 (Cal. 1997) Cited 598 times
Holding even if attempted murder constitutes same offense as murder, Diaz applies
People v. Murphy
25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001) Cited 337 times
Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous
People v. Williams
34 Cal.4th 397 (Cal. 2004) Cited 278 times
Referring to three concurrent “sentences” plus enhancements for prior convictions as an “aggregate sentence,” which ran consecutively to a sentence in another case, resulting in “an overall net sentence”
People v. Jones
25 Cal.4th 98 (Cal. 2001) Cited 278 times
Holding that defendant should have received a single life sentence—as opposed to three consecutive sentences—for vaginally and anally raping victim and forcing her to orally copulate him in the backseat of a car during the span of one-and-a-half hours
People v. Hanson
23 Cal.4th 355 (Cal. 2000) Cited 282 times
Finding that a restitution fine constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes based on an express legislative intent to increase the "`penalty'" for convicted criminals and dissuade "`future criminality'"
People v. Neely
176 Cal.App.4th 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 217 times
Holding that an unauthorized sentence results where a crime punishable by an indeterminate sentence is used as "principal term" under section 1170.1
People v. Jenkins
140 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 166 times
Finding on strike & § 667, subd., allegations based on out-of-state conviction reversed for insufficient evidence; "these allegations may be retried if the prosecutor obtains additional evidence regarding the Utah robberies to establish that [the defendant] used force or fear against a person with a possessory interest in the property taken"
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,160 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication
Cal. R. 8.1110 Cited 2,325 times
(a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For
Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions
Cal. R. 8.1105 Cited 2,086 times
(a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion
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
Rule 8.516 - Issues on review
Cal. R. 8.516 Cited 119 times
(a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide
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
Rule 4.426 - Violent sex crimes
Cal. R. 4.426 Cited 55 times
(a) Multiple violent sex crimes When a defendant has been convicted of multiple violent sex offenses as defined in section 667.6, the sentencing judge must determine whether the crimes involved separate victims or the same victim on separate occasions. (1) Different victims If the crimes were committed against different victims, a full, separate, and consecutive term must be imposed for a violent sex crime as to each victim, under section 667.6(d). (2)Same victim, separate occasions If the crimes

PEOPLE v. SASSER

33 Cited authorities

Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"

Holding that the "least degree of similarity" between two offenses is required to prove intent.

Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his act or omission

Holding even if attempted murder constitutes same offense as murder, Diaz applies

Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

Referring to three concurrent “sentences” plus enhancements for prior convictions as an “aggregate sentence,” which ran consecutively to a sentence in another case, resulting in “an overall net sentence”

Holding that defendant should have received a single life sentence—as opposed to three consecutive sentences—for vaginally and anally raping victim and forcing her to orally copulate him in the backseat of a car during the span of one-and-a-half hours

Finding that a restitution fine constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes based on an express legislative intent to increase the "`penalty'" for convicted criminals and dissuade "`future criminality'"

Holding that an unauthorized sentence results where a crime punishable by an indeterminate sentence is used as "principal term" under section 1170.1

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”