24 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 68,635 times   16 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"
  2. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

    458 U.S. 419 (1982)   Cited 936 times   8 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 534 times
    In Samaniego, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, the appellate court determined that while CALCRIM No. 400 was misleading as applied, the instructional error was harmless.
  4. People v. Manibusan

    58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 417 times
    In People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1, the prosecution exercised its first peremptory strike against a black female juror whose only prior service on a jury had resulted in a hung jury.
  5. People v. Anderson

    51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 410 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 229 times
    Recognizing propriety of claim-of-right instruction in robbery case
  7. People v. Jones

    25 Cal.4th 98 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 182 times
    In Jones, supra, 25 Cal.4th 98, the California Supreme Court held that the phrase "a single occasion" for purposes of then section 667.61, subdivision (g), meant the sex offenses "were committed in close temporal and spatial proximity."
  8. People v. Lawson

    215 Cal.App.4th 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 89 times
    In Lawson, the defendant was found guilty of petty theft with priors after stealing a $20 hooded sweatshirt from a retail store.
  9. People v. Guzman

    35 Cal.4th 577 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Guzman, the defendant was arrested for possession and being under the influence of a controlled substance; at the time he was on probation for prior charges of inflicting corporal punishment on a cohabitant and committing misdemeanor battery upon a peace officer engaged in his duties.
  10. People v. Yarbrough

    169 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 89 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Yarbrough, the court affirmed the conviction of a defendant under section 12031 who had carried a gun on a private driveway. It held the private driveway is a "public place" under the statute if "it is reasonably accessible to the public without a barrier."
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 219 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 6 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