§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, Richard Anthony Smith, Reply Brief on the Merits

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,250 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

  2. Cooley v. Superior Court

    29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 653 times
    Adopting the same standard of appellate review of the trial court's probable cause determination

  3. People V. McKee

    47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 498 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the SVPA is not punitive

  4. People v. Gonzales

    56 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 79 times
    Concluding erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where “in his closing argument, the district attorney did not emphasize the evidence affected by the trial court error”

  5. In re Smith

    42 Cal.4th 1251 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 85 times
    Affirming § 6601, subd. was intended to apply to mistakes of law causing extended custody where the relevant statute was not explicit and no controlling judicial decision was directly on point

  6. In re Calhoun

    121 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that under Harper, "the due process clause permits the involuntary medication of competent SVP with antipsychotic drugs in the absence of an emergency, provided that such treatment is in the SVP's medical interest"

  7. Albertson v. Superior Court

    25 Cal.4th 796 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 49 times
    Relying on legislative history showing that the Legislature had enacted a statute requiring disclosure of confidential records of sex offenders to the district attorney despite the fact that no such exemption was added to section 5328

  8. Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com

    30 Cal.2d 388 (Cal. 1947)   Cited 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declaring retroactive statute which "affects rights, obligations, acts, transactions and conditions which are performed or exist prior to the adoption of the statute"

  9. Wilke Holzheiser v. Dept., Alco. Bev. Con

    65 Cal.2d 349 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 92 times
    In Wilke Holzheiser we reconsidered our decision in AlliedProperties in the face of a challenge based upon the circumstance that since 1959, when the latter was decided, a majority of states had held mandatory price maintenance provisions, nonsigner provisions or fair trade laws to be unconstitutional.

  10. In re M.L.

    210 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 14 times

    No. E054939. 2012-11-9 In re M.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.L., Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Kimberly R. Burke and Kimberly R. Burke, Upland, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean–Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MILLER Law Office of Kimberly R. Burke and Kimberly R. Burke, Upland, for Defendant and Appellant

  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