§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

Respondent’s Petition for Review

16 Cited authorities

  1. In re George T

    33 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 498 times
    Concluding that "a reviewing court should make an independent examination of the record in a [Penal Code] section 422 case when a defendant raises a plausible First Amendment defense to ensure that a speaker's free speech rights have not been infringed by a trier of fact's determination that the communication at issue constitutes a criminal threat."

  2. People v. Solis

    90 Cal.App.4th 1002 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 435 times
    Holding a criminal threat to be an act of violence and noting that the infliction of mental terror is as deserving of moral condemnation as the infliction of physical injury

  3. People v. Jefferson

    21 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that the minimum 15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement

  4. People v. Avery

    27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 376 times
    Allowing courts to look to the entire record of conviction to determine whether the out-of-state conduct constitutes a "serious felony" under Three Strikes

  5. People v. Mendoza

    59 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 349 times
    Holding under section 422 that " rational juror could reasonably find a threat to bring a person to the attention of a criminal street gang as someone who has 'ratted' on a fellow gang member presents a serious danger of death or great bodily injury"

  6. People ex Rel. Lungren v. Superior Court

    14 Cal.4th 294 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 317 times
    Holding that, consistent with the broad protection for drinking water before it comes out of the tap, a defective plumbing fixture was a "source of drinking water."

  7. People v. Pieters

    52 Cal.3d 894 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 282 times
    Referring to sections 12022.7 and 12022.9 as enhancements for “infliction of great bodily injury”

  8. People v. Franz

    88 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that defendant's "shush" or "sh" sound was enough to constitute a verbal statement, thus rendering his gesture a criminal threat

  9. Calatayud v. State

    18 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 69 times
    Applying the firefighter's rule to bar suit between fellow police officers for negligently caused injuries, and stating that application of the rule in that case is consistent with the "public policy decision to meet the public's obligation to its officers collectively through tax-supported compensation rather than through individual tort recoveries"

  10. People v. Superior Court (Lujan)

    73 Cal.App.4th 1123 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 31 times

    B131671 (Super. Ct. No. BA172982) Filed July 29, 1999 Certified for Publication ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for writ of mandate granted, James M. Ideman, Judge. Gil Garcetti, District Attorney, Brentford J. Ferreira and Natasha S. Cooper, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Isaacson Isaacson and Joel R. Isaacson for Real Party in Interest. WEISMAN, J.[fn1] [fn1] Judge of the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District, assigned by the Chief Justice

  11. Section 422 - Unlawful threat to commit crime

    Cal. Pen. Code § 422   Cited 6,170 times
    Making a criminal threat

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)