§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. PEREZ

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

45 Cited authorities

  1. Dillon v. United States

    560 U.S. 817 (2010)   Cited 6,993 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)

  2. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 4,472 times
    Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant

  3. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  4. People v. Williams

    26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 690 times
    Holding that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur

  5. 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

  6. People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)

    215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 445 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing

  7. People v. Aguilar

    16 Cal.4th 1023 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 699 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a deadly weapon must be an object extrinsic to the human body

  8. People v. Blakely

    225 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 323 times
    Taking rule of lenity into consideration in so holding

  9. Goodman v. Lozano

    47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that where a plaintiff's prior settlement exceeds the award received at trial, plaintiff's net monetary recovery is zero and does not compel the trial court to designate such party as a prevailing party

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or