§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. VALENCIA

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

29 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Osuna

    225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 439 times
    Holding the correct standard of proof for resentencing eligibility determinations is preponderance of the evidence

  2. People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)

    215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 445 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing

  3. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 828 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"

  4. In re Lance W

    37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 691 times
    Finding that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated § 1538.5, subd.

  5. Dix v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 441 times
    Construing § 1170, subd. (d)

  6. Day v. City of Fontana

    25 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 292 times
    Adopting construction of statute that “promotes, rather than defeats, its general purpose”

  7. 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."

  8. Delaney v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 384 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the use of "all" in a constitutional provision precluded any exceptions

  9. People v. Canty

    32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 246 times
    In Canty, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of transporting methamphetamine, a felony, and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, has been “ ‘convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' ” within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2), and section 1210, subdivision (d).

  10. Amador Valley Jt. Un. High Sch. v. State Bd. of Equal

    22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although initiative measure's title and summary were technically imprecise, they substantially complied with the law

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  12. Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.360   Cited 102 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare