§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. PAGE

Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. People v. Garza

    35 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 428 times
    Holding that a defendant convicted of post-theft driving under section 10851 may also be convicted of violating Penal Code section 496, whereas a defendant convicted of the theft form of section 10851 may not

  3. People v. Gonzales

    2 Cal.5th 858 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 270 times
    Holding that because cashing a stolen check is a form of larceny under § 490, subd., a defendant’s conviction for burglary for "entering a bank to cash a stolen check for less than $950 ... constitutes shoplifting under the statute"

  4. In re Lance W

    37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 691 times
    Finding that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated § 1538.5, subd.

  5. People v. Rizo

    22 Cal.4th 681 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 287 times
    Holding that "a specific intent crime" that "focuses solely on the acts and intent of the violator" may be committed even if the defendant's intent is based on a mistaken understanding

  6. People v. Johnston

    247 Cal.App.4th 252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 66 times
    In Johnston, our colleagues in the Third District concluded subdivision (a) of section 1170.18 contains a definitive list of offenses that are eligible for reduction under Proposition 47. (Johnston, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 257.)

  7. People v. Sauceda

    3 Cal.App.5th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 51 times
    In People v. Sauceda (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 635 (Sauceda), review granted November 30, 2016, S237975, we held that Vehicle Code section 10851 is not affected by the changes enacted through Proposition 47, and no equal protection violation arises from the different potential punishments for, or the failure to grant retroactive sentencing relief to, those convicted under Vehicle Code section 10851. (Sauceda, at pp. 644-650.)

  8. People v. Van Orden

    9 Cal.App.5th 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 43 times
    In People v. Van Orden (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1277, review granted June 14, 2017 (S241574) (Van Orden), a majority of a different panel of this court held Proposition 47 eliminates prosecutorial discretion to charge as a felony any theft of a vehicle worth less than $950—even when the offense is charged under Vehicle Code section 10851. (Van Orden, at p. 1283.)

  9. People v. Strong

    30 Cal.App.4th 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 73 times
    In People v. Strong (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 366, 369 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 494] (Strong), the defendant was arrested while driving a stolen pickup truck, and he was convicted of both receiving stolen property and violating section 10851(a).

  10. People v. Kehoe

    33 Cal.2d 711 (Cal. 1949)   Cited 86 times
    Requiring evidence of a substantial break between the taking and use of an automobile to sustain separate convictions for taking and driving the car

  11. Rule 8.512 - Ordering review

    Cal. R. 8.512   Cited 3,613 times

    (a) Transmittal of record On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal if the record was transmitted in paper form. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b)Determination