§Why CasetextPricing

HARRIS v. S.C. (PEOPLE )

Petitioner’s Reply Brief on the Merits

13 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Goodwin

    457 U.S. 368 (1982)   Cited 1,625 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

  2. Robert L. v. Superior Court of Orange County

    30 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 442 times
    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

  3. People v. Ault

    33 Cal.4th 1250 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 420 times
    Holding that standard of review of prejudice in a case where the trial court granted a motion for new trial was abuse of discretion

  4. Doe v. Harris

    57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 247 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) )

  5. People v. Hanson

    23 Cal.4th 355 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 282 times
    Finding that a restitution fine constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes based on an express legislative intent to increase the "`penalty'" for convicted criminals and dissuade "`future criminality'"

  6. T.W. v. Superior Court (The People)

    236 Cal.App.4th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 134 times
    Concluding Prop. 47 "clearly and unambiguously" applies to convictions obtained by guilty plea

  7. People v. Collins

    21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 230 times
    Holding repeal of criminal statute requires dismissal of pending criminal proceedings charging such conduct

  8. People v. Gipson

    117 Cal.App.4th 1065 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that plea bargains are “deemed to incorporate and contemplate not only existing law but the reserve power of the state to amend the law or enact additional laws,”

  9. People v. Barker

    34 Cal.4th 345 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that a violation of the sex offender registration statutes requires actual knowledge of the duty to register but that one may violate the statute simply by forgetting to register after having been advised of the duty to do so

  10. Santos v. Brown

    238 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 39 times
    Describing the Governor's pardon power as "plenary"

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,313 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,153 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