31 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 69,225 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. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

    526 U.S. 838 (1999)   Cited 13,794 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to timely exhaust habeas claim amounts to procedural default
  3. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 10,406 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person may not be convicted "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged"
  4. Kelly v. Robinson

    479 U.S. 36 (1986)   Cited 1,164 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the `starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself'" (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drugstores, 421 U.S. 723, 756, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring))
  5. People v. Maury

    30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,521 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal
  6. People v. Marshall

    15 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 816 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a trial court may give a requested instruction "if it is supported by substantial evidence"
  7. People v. Superior Court (Alvarez)

    14 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 807 times
    Holding that a trial court's discretion under Cal.Penal Code § 17(b) to reduce a "wobbler" offense is not eliminated by the Three Strikes law but is reviewable
  8. People v. Welch

    5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 867 times
    In Welch, the California Supreme Court held that defendant waived her claims that her probation conditions were unreasonable by not raising them at the sentencing hearing. Welch, 5 Cal. 4th at 237.
  9. People v. Carbajal

    10 Cal.4th 1114 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 724 times
    Noting that state courts have “broad discretion to determine whether an eligible defendant is suitable for probation and, if so, under what conditions”
  10. People v. Lent

    15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 1,217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lent itself, "there [was] no question as to the relationship of the total sum of restitution ordered to the crime of which defendant was convicted."
  11. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 1,550 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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 4.410 - General objectives in sentencing

    Cal. R. 4.410   Cited 88 times

    (a)General objectives of sentencing include: (1) Protecting society; (2) Punishing the defendant; (3) Encouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding life in the future and deterring him or her from future offenses; (4) Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its consequences; (5) Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating him or her for the period of incarceration; (6) Securing restitution for the victims of crime; (7) Achieving uniformity in sentencing; and

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

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)