§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DEHOYOS

Appellant, Veronica Lorraine DeHoyos, Supplemental Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,248 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. Valencia

    3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 461 times
    Holding the narrower definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" under Proposition 47 does not apply to proceedings under Proposition 36

  3. People v. Romanowski

    2 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 362 times
    Finding this "approach has no basis in the statutory language ‘reasonable and fair market value’ " in § 484, subd.

  4. People v. Conley

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

  5. People v. Floyd

    31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 365 times
    Finding no equal protection violation in the expressly prospective application of Proposition 36 providing for mandatory probation for some convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses

  6. Tapia v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.3d 282 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 463 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that provisions of Proposition 115 affecting the conduct of criminal trials can constitutionally be applied to trial of a crime committed before its enactment

  7. People v. Wright

    40 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 239 times
    Holding MMPA is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial

  8. People v. Trippet

    56 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 137 times
    Concluding the CUA does not serve as an " 'open sesame' regarding the possession, transportation and sale of marijuana"

  9. People v. DeHoyos

    238 Cal.App.4th 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 21 times
    In People v. DeHoyos (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 363, review granted September 30, 2015, S228230, the appellate court discerned a "legislative intent not to automatically apply Proposition 47 to persons currently serving sentences for listed offenses" (id. at p. 368), but rather to permit their resentencing and release only if a court determines under section 1170.18 that they pose no risk to public safety.

  10. 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

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 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 8.50 - 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

  13. 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