People v. Rivera

Noting Proposition 47 became effective in November 2014

People v. Park

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

Robert L. v. Superior Court of Orange County

Rejecting an argument the electorate intended for an existing statute to limit the scope of a statute enacted by initiative when the statute enacted by initiative did not refer to the existing statute or mirror the existing statute's language

In re Lance W

Finding that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated § 1538.5, subd.

People v. Floyd

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

People v. Contreras

In People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, the court reached a constitutional overbreadth argument despite the defendant's failure to object in the trial court, but noted the review was appropriate because it did not require reference to the record.

People v. Rizo

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

People v. Canty

In Canty, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of transporting methamphetamine, a felony, and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, has been “ ‘convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' ” within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2), and section 1210, subdivision (d).

People v. Butler

In Butler, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, the court noted that "in expressly authorizing prosecutions under section 484d et seq. even where conduct could also be charged under other penal statutes, the Legislature revealed a manifest purpose that because the access card statutes are broadly worded, they are to be important weapons against fraudulent consumer and business practices, no matter how technologically adept the perpetrator may be."

Hughes Electronics Corp. v. Citibank Delaware

In Hughes, we applied the reasoning and conclusion of Hambrecht and found that where the parties' agreement stated that it was" 'governed by the laws of the state of New York,'" the term "laws" incorporated all of the state's laws, rejecting the idea that "when faced with an unqualified choice of law contractual provision, a court is free to pick and choose which of a chosen jurisdiction's laws to apply."

Rule 8.500 - Petition for review