§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DEHOYOS

Appellant, Veronica Lorraine DeHoyos, Letter Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,249 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. People v. Conley

    63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 366 times
    Holding that Proposition 36 relief was not available on direct appeal

  3. Harris v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    1 Cal.5th 984 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 185 times
    Rejecting the Attorney General's argument that Proposition 47 could not be applied to sentences resulting from plea agreements because the electorate's language —"whether by trial or plea"—indicated the intent to include within the scope of Proposition 47 sentences that were the result of negotiated agreements

  4. 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

  5. People v. Nuckles

    56 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 134 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.

  6. People v. Walker

    5 Cal.App.5th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 26 times
    Ruling on post-judgment motion raising the same claim as on appeal is a "legal nullity"

  7. People v. Spiller

    2 Cal.App.5th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    In Spiller, the court held that a defendant is eligible for relief under Proposition 36 (the "Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012," § 1170.126, subd. (e)) if the disqualifying super strike conviction occurred after his commission of the nonserious crime for which he sought resentencing.

  8. In re Kirk

    63 Cal.2d 761 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    Docket No. Crim. 9195. December 23, 1965. PROCEEDING in habeas corpus to secure release from custody. Writ granted with directions. Loy Rollin Kirk, in pro. per., and Robert N. Beechinor, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, Edsel W. Haws and Richard K. Turner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondents. PETERS, J. This case presents the same problem involved in In re Estrada, ante, p. 740 [ 48 Cal.Rptr

  9. Rule 8.50 - Applications

    Cal. R. 8.50   Cited 11 times

    (a)Service and filing Except as these rules provide otherwise, parties must serve and file all applications in the reviewing court, including applications to extend the time to file records, briefs, or other documents, and applications to shorten time. For good cause, the Chief Justice or presiding justice may excuse advance service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Contents The application must state facts showing good cause or making

  10. Rule 1.21 - Service

    Cal. R. 1.21   Cited 7 times

    (a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented. (b) "Serve and file" As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to "serve and file" a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or