§Why CasetextPricing

RICHARDS (WILLIAM JOSEPH) ON H.C.

Non-Title Respondent, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Written Return

19 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,591 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. People v. Young

    34 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 2,832 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim that post-conviction counsel was "burdened by a conflict of interest" was not cognizable because there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings

  3. In re Clark

    5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 3,135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"

  4. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 513 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

  5. In re Reno

    55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 381 times
    Approving of abbreviated state court habeas exhaustion petition procedure and finding it did not conflict with United States Supreme Court limitation of federal habeas review to the record before the state court which adjudicated the claim on the merits in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170

  6. People v. Gonzalez

    51 Cal.3d 1179 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 727 times
    Holding that the “bare filing” of a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not trigger a right to discovery because a habeas corpus petition that fails to state a prima facie case for relief creates no cause or proceeding that would confer discovery jurisdiction

  7. People v. Kelly

    17 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 800 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the test for determining the underlying reliability of new scientific techniques as set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

  8. Frye v. United States

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)   Cited 4,497 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

  9. Richardson v. Superior Court

    43 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 130 times
    Finding the term "reasonable probability" in § 1405, subd. (f) regarding motion for DNA testing has the same meaning as it does under Strickland and Watson

  10. People v. Harrison

    57 Cal.4th 1211 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 98 times
    Adjudicating challenge to MDO Act procedure and noting that MDO Act's procedural requirements are distinct from statute's substantive criteria

  11. Rule 8.385 - Proceedings after the petition is filed

    Cal. R. 8.385   Cited 55 times

    (a) Production of record Before ruling on the petition, the court may order the custodian of any relevant record to produce the record or a certified copy to be filed with the court. Sealed and confidential records are governed by rules 8.45-8.47. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2014.) (b) Informal response (1) Before ruling on the petition, the court may request an informal written response from the respondent, the real party in interest, or an interested person. The court must send a copy