31 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 135,516 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"
  2. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 1,833 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement
  3. 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"
  4. People v. Ochoa

    19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 955 times
    Holding no entitlement to instruction on involuntary manslaughter based on voluntary intoxication where the defendant approached the victim, told her to be quiet, displayed a knife, took the victim to a secluded area and told her to remove her pants, and when she later asked to put her pants back on he gave permission.
  5. People v. Hester

    22 Cal.4th 290 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 590 times
    Holding acceptance of plea bargain for specified sentence waived statutory right not to receive multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct
  6. People v. Delgado

    43 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 315 times
    Finding reference to “ ‘PC’ ” “ ‘245’ ” and “ ‘Asslt w DWpn’ ” sufficient to prove assault was committed with deadly weapon to qualify as serious felony
  7. People v. High

    119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 336 times
    In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (High), the Court of Appeal, Third District, stated, "Although the Legislature enacted Government Code section 70372 as a method of increasing the funds available to remodel, renovate and construct new state court facilities, the structure, operative principle, and descriptive language chosen reflect[ed] a penal purpose as well."
  8. People v. Alford

    42 Cal.4th 749 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 271 times
    Holding that the fee under former §1465.8 was not a punitive fine subject to ex post facto restrictions, and that the trial court properly imposed the fee in effect after the defendant committed his crime
  9. People v. Sharret

    191 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 242 times
    Finding a separate fee must be imposed for each qualifying violation
  10. People v. Dotson

    16 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 225 times
    In People v. Dotson, supra, 16 Cal.4th 547, for example, this court observed that "the defendant's current felony need not be `serious' for the three strikes law to apply," and distinguished between "a recidivist who committed a serious third strike felony" and one "who committed a nonserious third strike felony."
  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 6,508 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 14 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)