§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GARCIA

Appellant’s Petition for Review

35 Cited authorities

  1. Chavez v. Martinez

    538 U.S. 760 (2003)   Cited 1,031 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights

  2. McKune v. Lile

    536 U.S. 24 (2002)   Cited 973 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the state-imposed repercussions insufficiently coercive to amount to compulsion

  3. Minnesota v. Murphy

    465 U.S. 420 (1984)   Cited 1,360 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the threat of revocation of probation was not sufficient to trigger self-executing Fifth Amendment protections because "[t]here is no direct evidence that [the defendant] confessed because he feared that his probation would be revoked if he remained silent," and "[r]evocation is not automatic" for violation of probation conditions

  4. Kastigar v. United States

    406 U.S. 441 (1972)   Cited 1,998 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"

  5. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 1,805 times
    In Sheena K., we approved the Court of Appeal's reliance on the vagueness doctrine to order modification of a probation condition barring the probationer from associating with " ‘anyone disapproved of by probation.

  6. Lefkowitz v. Turley

    414 U.S. 70 (1973)   Cited 877 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fifth Amendment "not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings"

  7. People v. Olguin

    45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 809 times
    In Olguin, the court held such requirements are conjunctive, that is all must be found to apply before invalidation under Lent would occur. (Olguin, at p. 379.)

  8. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 3,429 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California trial court is bound by decisions of state supreme court and courts of appeal

  9. People v. Lent

    15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 1,251 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lent itself, "there [was] no question as to the relationship of the total sum of restitution ordered to the crime of which defendant was convicted."

  10. Burns v. United States

    287 U.S. 216 (1932)   Cited 418 times
    Holding that, under statute providing that court “may revoke or modify any condition of probation,” sentencing court had “broad discretion” in determining whether revocation or modification would serve “the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the defendant”

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 380,165 times   525 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 1203.067

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1203.067   Cited 41 times

    (a) Notwithstanding any other law, before probation may be granted to any person convicted of a felony specified in Section 261, 262, 264.1, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, or 289, or former Section 288a, who is eligible for probation, the court shall do all of the following: (1) Order the defendant evaluated pursuant to Section 1203.03, or similar evaluation by the county probation department. (2) Conduct a hearing at the time of sentencing to determine if probation of the defendant would pose a threat to

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 229 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