§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CORPENING

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

39 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,219 times
    Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice

  2. People v. Maury

    30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 2,551 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

  3. People v. Waidla

    22 Cal.4th 690 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 2,678 times
    Rejecting a similar claim raised in a perfunctory fashion

  4. People v. Smith

    37 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,279 times
    Holding that even in the absence of motive, shooting at close range supports inference of express malice

  5. People v. Davis

    46 Cal.4th 539 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 663 times
    Holding defendant's statement—"'Well then book me and let's get a lawyer and let's go for it, you know'"—was a challenge to interrogators that defendant employed as interrogation technique, not a means to invoke right to counsel or silence; contrasting these comments with statements later in interrogation, "'get me a lawyer'" and "'it's over and [he was] done'" answering questions, that constituted a valid invocation

  6. People v. Harrison

    48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 1,344 times
    Upholding separate punishments for three acts of sexual penetration over the course of less than 10 minutes where "each of defendant's 'repenetrations' was clearly volitional, criminal and occasioned by a separate act of force."

  7. People v. Prunty

    62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 520 times
    In People v. Prunty, 62 Cal. 4th 59 (2015), the California Supreme Court held that gang subsets meet the subsection (f) definition where the prosecution shows "some associational or organizational connection uniting those subsets."

  8. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  9. People v. Jones

    54 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 475 times
    Holding that section 654 prohibits multiple punishments for possession of a single firearm.

  10. People v. Gomez

    43 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 419 times
    Affirming second degree robbery conviction of defendant who first used force or fear when property owner tried to regain property

  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

  12. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  13. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any