§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. FRANCO

Appellant’s Petition for Review

11 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Rivera

    233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1,003 times
    In People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, the court held that section 1170.18, subdivision (k) should be applied prospectively.

  2. People v. Mitchell

    26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,439 times
    Noting that a certified abstract of judgment "constitutes the commitment" and serves as "the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect"

  3. Hicks v. Oklahoma

    447 U.S. 343 (1980)   Cited 697 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has a “substantial and legitimate expectation” under the Fourteenth Amendment to be deprived of his liberty only to the extent determined by the trier of fact “in the exercise of its statutory discretion”

  4. People v. Saunders

    5 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 384 times
    Detailing California approach, since 1874, of permitting stipulation and, more recently, of also permitting bifurcation

  5. Calif. Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Comm. College Dist

    28 Cal.3d 692 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 432 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, our Supreme Court construed identical language in section 45025's predecessor, former section 13503.1. The Court considered whether the statute obligated the defendant community college district to calculate the pay of part-time instructors based on "classroom hours only" or rather based on all time "working on the job, including time spent both inside and outside of the classroom."

  6. Flannery v. Prentice

    26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming award of attorneys' fees and costs of $891,042

  7. Fetterly v. Paskett

    997 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion for a district court not to stay an exhausted petition pending exhaustion of a newly discovered claim

  8. People v. Cuellar

    165 Cal.App.4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 48 times
    In Cuellar, a case decided prior to the enactment of Proposition 47, the defendant was convicted of grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)) after he gave a store clerk a " 'bogus check' " and then grabbed the check back from the clerk.

  9. People v. Amaya

    242 Cal.App.4th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    B261189 11-03-2015 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Juan Carlos AMAYA, Defendant and Appellant. Leonard J. Klaif, Ojai, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ASHMANN–GERST, J. Leonard J. Klaif, Ojai, under appointment by the Court of Appeal

  10. Walker v. Deeds

    50 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 25 times
    Recognizing liberty interests in state procedural rights at sentencing

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 229 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