18 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Rivera

    233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 995 times
    In People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, the court held that section 1170.18, subdivision (k) should be applied prospectively.
  2. People v. Aaron Sung-Uk Park

    56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 403 times
    Finding that a felony wobbler reduced to a misdemeanor would count as a prior felony conviction for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under Cal.Penal Code § 667(d), but would not count as a prior felony conviction for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under Cal.Penal Code § 667
  3. Robert L. v. Superior Court of Orange County

    30 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 304 times
    In Robert L., supra, 30 Cal.4th 894, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 69 P.3d 951, we refused to presume that voters were aware of the legal meaning of the term "wobbler."
  4. People v. Floyd

    31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 296 times
    Rejecting defendant's assertion that prospective legislation fails rational basis review and noting state's legitimate interests in ensuring "penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written"
  5. People v. Woodhead

    43 Cal.3d 1002 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 330 times
    In People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, as well as Thomas, current convictions are limited to immediate convictions, not past convictions.
  6. People v. Rubalcava

    23 Cal.4th 322 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that the intent to use a dagger as a stabbing weapon is not an express element of California Penal Code § 12020
  7. People v. Garcia

    185 Cal.App.4th 1203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 110 times
    In Garcia, the court noted the rape victim seeking restitution testified that all therapy bills before the court pertained to treatment following the rape.
  8. People v. Nuckles

    56 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 100 times
    In Nuckles, we said that "[t]he gist of the [ section 32 ] offense is that the accused ‘ "harbors, conceals or aids" the principal with the requisite knowledge and intent.
  9. People v. Superior Court (Cervantes)

    225 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 92 times

    F066969 2014-04-24 The PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Tulare County, Respondent; Alfredo Cervantes, Real Party in Interest. See 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 421B. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. (Super. Ct. No. VCF036841–95) DETJEN See 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 421B. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian

  10. People v. Espinoza

    226 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 56 times
    In Espinoza, the court rejected an "argument that PRCS is an ex post facto law" for various reasons including the fact that had Espinoza not been subject to PRCS on his release from prison, he "would have had equivalent terms and conditions" imposed if released on parole.