49 Cited authorities

  1. Freeman v. U.S.

    564 U.S. 522 (2011)   Cited 1,487 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a term of imprisonment resulting from a Rule 11(c)(C) plea agreement is "based on" the guidelines for purposes of § 3582(c) when, inter alia, the agreement "provide for a specific term of imprisonment . . . but also make clear that the basis for the specified term is a Guidelines sentencing range" and "that sentencing range is evident from the agreement itself"
  2. United States v. Goodwin

    457 U.S. 368 (1982)   Cited 1,452 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial
  3. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 489 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”
  4. People v. Shelton

    37 Cal.4th 759 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 362 times
    Contracting parties' intent can be determined by circumstances under which parties entered into or negotiated the contract and the parties' subsequent conduct
  5. Johnson v. Dep't of Justice

    60 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 270 times
    Holding mandatory sex offender registration for defendants convicted of nonforcible oral copulation by an adult over 21 years with a person under 16 years of age [§ 288a, subd. (b)(2)] does not violate the state or federal equal protection clauses, and overruling the rational basis test set forth in People v. Hofsheier 37 Cal.4th 1185
  6. People v. Segura

    44 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 324 times
    In Segura, a case in which the trial court imposed a sentence and suspended its execution, we considered whether the requirement that the defendant serve a specified period in the county jail — an express condition of granting probation — constituted a material term of the plea agreement, and therefore was not subject to later modification by the trial court as a matter of its general statutory authority to modify probation in light of subsequent events.
  7. John Doe v. Harris

    57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that plea agreements, which are governed by general contract principles, are " ‘ "deemed to incorporate and contemplate not only the existing law but the reserve power of the state to amend the law or enact additional laws" ’ " (quoting People v. Gipson, 117 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1070, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 478, 481 (2004) )
  8. Evangelatos v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 392 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a measure, which modified the traditional, common law joint and several liability doctrine, did not apply to claims for relief that had accrued before the effective date of the new law
  9. People v. Briceno

    34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 212 times
    Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22
  10. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School

    29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 215 times
    In Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 62 P.3d 54], it held that a provision in that code must be interpreted "`"with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.
  11. Section 3583 - Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3583   Cited 12,392 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Adopting by reference 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b) to govern the ordering of restitution as a condition of supervised release
  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 238 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer