17 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. 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
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. Guerrero
44 Cal.3d 343 (Cal. 1988) Cited 533 times
Holding that "in determining the truth of a prior-conviction allegation, the trier of fact may look to the entire record of the conviction"
People v. Woodell
17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) Cited 376 times
Holding that the record of conviction includes not only the trial court record but also an appellate opinion, at least for nonhearsay purposes
People v. Trujillo
40 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. 2006) Cited 244 times
Concluding defendant’s statements, made after guilty plea accepted & contained in RPO prepared after guilty plea accepted, are not part of record of prior conviction because such statements do not reflect facts of offense for which defendant convicted
People v. Reed
13 Cal.4th 217 (Cal. 1996) Cited 314 times
Holding that a fragment from a probation report was inadmissible hearsay, without deciding whether it was part of the record of conviction

PEOPLE v. FRIERSON

17 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

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

Taking rule of lenity into consideration in so holding

Holding that "in determining the truth of a prior-conviction allegation, the trier of fact may look to the entire record of the conviction"

Holding that the record of conviction includes not only the trial court record but also an appellate opinion, at least for nonhearsay purposes

Concluding defendant’s statements, made after guilty plea accepted & contained in RPO prepared after guilty plea accepted, are not part of record of prior conviction because such statements do not reflect facts of offense for which defendant convicted

Holding that a fragment from a probation report was inadmissible hearsay, without deciding whether it was part of the record of conviction