§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 1,005 times
    Noting Proposition 47 became effective in November 2014

  2. People v. Mitchell

    26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,468 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 703 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 387 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.

  6. Flannery v. Prentice

    26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 135 times   3 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
    Holding uncashed fictitious check which had aroused suspicion had the slight intrinsic value required to support grand theft conviction

  9. People v. Amaya

    242 Cal.App.4th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Determining that the defendant's oral motion satisfied the statutory requirement of a petition under section 1170.18, subdivision

  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 236 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