§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. JUAREZ

Respondent, Emmanuel Juarez, Reply Brief on the Merits

7 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 138 times
    In Miller the court did not reach the merits of the petitioner's claim, stating that federal habeas relief is not available for alleged errors in interpreting and applying state law.

  2. Kellett v. Superior Court

    63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 324 times
    In Kellett, the California Supreme Court held that under § 654, the failure to unite all offenses in the same act or course of conduct "will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence."

  3. Burris v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 1012 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 101 times
    In Burris, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1012, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 103 P.3d 276, a misdemeanor complaint was dismissed, followed by a felony charge based on the same conduct.

  4. People v. Traylor

    46 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 32 times
    In Traylor, however, our high court was not analyzing the situation we have here, an allegation of two separate offenses occurring on two different occasions.

  5. People v. Salcido

    166 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 22 times
    Reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard

  6. Paredes v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    77 Cal.App.4th 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 21 times
    In Paredes, the court held that after a criminal case was dismissed under Penal Code section 1382 (right to speedy trial) and immediately refiled, the defendant's peremptory challenge was timely because the dismissal terminated the action, and the refiling of the case was not a continuation of the dismissed case.

  7. People v. Luu

    209 Cal.App.3d 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 13 times

    Docket No. H0003827. March 31, 1989. [Opinion certified for partial publication. ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976(b), this opinion is certified for partial publication. The portion to be published follows. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 114218, Leslie C. Nichols, Judge. COUNSEL John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama, Assistant Attorney General, David D. Salmon and Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attorneys