§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CHATMAN

Respondent’s Petition for Review

22 Cited authorities

  1. Heller v. Doe

    509 U.S. 312 (1993)   Cited 2,336 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

  2. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.

    508 U.S. 307 (1993)   Cited 2,226 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"

  3. Cooley v. Superior Court

    29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 653 times
    Adopting the same standard of appellate review of the trial court's probable cause determination

  4. People V. McKee

    47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 496 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the SVPA is not punitive

  5. Johnson v. Department of Justice

    60 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 366 times
    Holding mandatory sex offender registration for defendants convicted of nonforcible oral copulation by an adult over 21 years with a person under 16 years of age [§ 288a, subd. (b)(2)] does not violate the state or federal equal protection clauses, and overruling the rational basis test set forth in People v. Hofsheier 37 Cal.4th 1185

  6. People v. Wilkinson

    33 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 482 times
    Finding rational basis in part because Legislature reasonably could withhold from trial courts discretion to reduce felonies to misdemeanors in cases "deemed serious enough by the prosecutor to warrant felony prosecution"

  7. In re Eric J

    25 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 600 times
    Holding that juvenile courts must use one-third of the maximum sentence for misdemeanors

  8. People v. Ansell

    25 Cal.4th 868 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that "the amendment to section 4852.01(d) does not impose punishment or otherwise implicate ex post facto concerns"

  9. People v. Mgebrov

    166 Cal.App.4th 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 46 times
    In People v. Mgebrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at page 586, the Court of Appeal held that the relief provided in section 1203.4, subdivision (a), applies to specific offenses.

  10. People v. Frawley

    82 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Construing Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4

  11. Section 8

    Cal. Const. art. V § 8   Cited 438 times
    Granting Governor the power to review the parole board's decisions regarding parole for murderers

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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 8.366 - Hearing and decision in the Court of Appeal

    Cal. R. 8.366   Cited 160 times

    (a)General application of rules 8.252-8.272 Except as provided in this rule, rules 8.252-8.272 govern the hearing and decision in the Court of Appeal of an appeal in a criminal case. (Subd (a) amended and lettered effective January 1, 2009; adopted as unlettered subd effective January 1, 2004.) (b)Finality (1) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, a Court of Appeal decision in a proceeding under this chapter, including an order dismissing an appeal involuntarily, is final in that court 30 days