§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. PENNINGTON

Appellant’s Petition for Review to Exhaust State Remedies

24 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,568 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  2. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

    458 U.S. 419 (1982)   Cited 1,113 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking

  3. People v. Samaniego

    172 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 784 times
    Holding that an objection to CALCRIM No. 400 was forfeited when the defendant failed to request modification or clarification at trial

  4. People v. Manibusan

    58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 593 times
    Finding of harmlessness based in part on circumstance that “[n]othing in the record suggests that any juror saw the belt”

  5. People v. Anderson

    51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 489 times
    Finding that CPC § 211 covered scenario in which perpetrator broke into unoccupied car parked in a garage and then accidentally ran over the car's owner while leaving the garage at high speed

  6. People v. Tufunga

    21 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 353 times
    Holding that claim of right defense does not extend to robberies perpetrated to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt

  7. 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

  8. People v. Guzman

    35 Cal.4th 577 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Inserting additional language into a statute violates the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes

  9. People v. Yarbrough

    169 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that Heller does not invalidate § 12025 conviction

  10. People v. Manzo

    53 Cal.4th 880 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 109 times
    Rejecting application of the rule of lenity and finding "[t]he legislative history, the purpose of the statute, general public policy concerns, and logic all favor an interpretation that would recognize a violation of section 246 when the shooter stands outside and fires at an occupied motor vehicle, regardless of whether the shooter is standing so close that the gun breaks the plane of the vehicle," and finding an interpretation exculpating a defendant in those circumstances may be a reasonable reading of the statutory text but not equally as reasonable as the one proffered by the People

  11. 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

  12. 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