§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ

Appellant’s Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Rivera

    233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1,043 times
    Noting Proposition 47 became effective in November 2014

  2. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,249 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

  3. People v. Sherow

    239 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 593 times
    Holding that under Proposition 47 the petitioner has the "burden of showing that he or she is eligible for resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence"

  4. Cooley v. Superior Court

    29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 653 times
    Adopting the same standard of appellate review of the trial court's probable cause determination

  5. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 888 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”

  6. People v. Rivas-Colon

    241 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 274 times
    Holding no right to jury trial on question of property value on resentencing petition

  7. 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.

  8. Caminetti v. United States

    242 U.S. 470 (1917)   Cited 1,907 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that importation of a woman for immoral purposes may constitutionally be regulated even when it is not for material gain

  9. People v. Contreras

    237 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 215 times
    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.

  10. 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

  11. Rule 8.512 - Ordering review

    Cal. R. 8.512   Cited 3,572 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

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.50 - Applications

    Cal. R. 8.50   Cited 11 times

    (a)Service and filing Except as these rules provide otherwise, parties must serve and file all applications in the reviewing court, including applications to extend the time to file records, briefs, or other documents, and applications to shorten time. For good cause, the Chief Justice or presiding justice may excuse advance service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Contents The application must state facts showing good cause or making

  15. Rule 1.21 - Service

    Cal. R. 1.21   Cited 7 times

    (a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented. (b) "Serve and file" As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to "serve and file" a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or