30 Cited authorities

People v. Park
56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal. 2013) Cited 453 times
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
People v. Osuna
225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 439 times
Holding the correct standard of proof for resentencing eligibility determinations is preponderance of the evidence
People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)
215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 445 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing
People v. Johnson
61 Cal.4th 674 (Cal. 2015) Cited 380 times
Explaining that we construe a provision's words in the context of the statutory scheme to determine meaning and also whether the language is ambiguous
People v. McGee
38 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2006) Cited 487 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial court's inquiry into whether a prior conviction qualified as a “serious felony” for purposes of California's Three Strikes law does not violate the federal constitutional right to a jury determination for facts increasing sentence
Teal v. Superior Court
60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) Cited 347 times
Holding resentencing provision of Three Strikes Law creates substantial right affecting personal liberty interest
People v. White
223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 336 times
Finding inmate ineligible for resentencing where the record of conviction showed the inmate "not only had a firearm 'in [his] possession or under [his] custody or control,' " but that "he also was personally armed with the firearm on that date because he was carrying—and, thus, had ' "ready access" ' to—that firearm"
People v. Blakely
225 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 323 times
Taking rule of lenity into consideration in so holding
People v. Bradford
227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 290 times
Holding that a resentencing proceeding under "[s]ection 1170.126, like the statutory mechanism under federal law for a sentencing reduction, is distinguishable from other sentencing proceedings" because the statute "merely provides a limited mechanism within which the trial court may consider a reduction of the sentence below the original term"
People v. Brimmer
230 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 259 times
Holding a prior appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction that may be used at the prima facie stage

PEOPLE v. ESTRADA

30 Cited authorities

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

Holding the correct standard of proof for resentencing eligibility determinations is preponderance of the evidence

Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing

Explaining that we construe a provision's words in the context of the statutory scheme to determine meaning and also whether the language is ambiguous

Holding that the trial court's inquiry into whether a prior conviction qualified as a “serious felony” for purposes of California's Three Strikes law does not violate the federal constitutional right to a jury determination for facts increasing sentence

Holding resentencing provision of Three Strikes Law creates substantial right affecting personal liberty interest

Taking rule of lenity into consideration in so holding

Holding a prior appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction that may be used at the prima facie stage