19 Cited authorities

People v. Sherow
239 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 593 times
Holding that under Proposition 47 the petitioner has the "burden of showing that he or she is eligible for resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence"
People v. Gomez
43 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2008) Cited 419 times
Affirming second degree robbery conviction of defendant who first used force or fear when property owner tried to regain property
People v. Murphy
25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001) Cited 337 times
Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous
People v. Contreras
237 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 215 times
In People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, the court reached a constitutional overbreadth argument despite the defendant's failure to object in the trial court, but noted the review was appropriate because it did not require reference to the record.
People v. Briceno
34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004) Cited 282 times
Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22
People v. Williams
57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013) Cited 196 times
In People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 (Williams), the California Supreme Court explained that "theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation.
People v. Cornett
53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012) Cited 170 times
Holding "'10 years of age or younger' as used in section 288.7 to be another means of saying 'under 11 years of age'"
People v. King
38 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 2006) Cited 138 times
In People v. King (2006) 38 Cal.4th 617, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 133 P.3d 636 (King), our Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's argument that instruments coming within that section never could be possessed lawfully.
In re J.L.
242 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 94 times
Concluding that a school is not a commercial establishment
People v. Cochran
28 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2002) Cited 75 times
Reasoning that “[i]f there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and [the Court] need not resort to legislative history to determine the statute's true meaning”
Section 459 - Burglary
Cal. Pen. Code § 459 Cited 11,874 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that a "person who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary"
Section 459.5 - Entry into commercial establishment
Cal. Pen. Code § 459.5 Cited 922 times
Shoplifting requires "entering a commercial establishment"
Section 10
Cal. Const. art. II § 10 Cited 799 times 1 Legal Analyses
Forbidding the Legislature from amending enactments made by voter initiative if the amendments are inconsistent with said initiative

PEOPLE v. COLBERT

19 Cited authorities

Holding that under Proposition 47 the petitioner has the "burden of showing that he or she is eligible for resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence"

Affirming second degree robbery conviction of defendant who first used force or fear when property owner tried to regain property

Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

In People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, the court reached a constitutional overbreadth argument despite the defendant's failure to object in the trial court, but noted the review was appropriate because it did not require reference to the record.

Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22

In People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 (Williams), the California Supreme Court explained that "theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation.

Holding "'10 years of age or younger' as used in section 288.7 to be another means of saying 'under 11 years of age'"

In People v. King (2006) 38 Cal.4th 617, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 133 P.3d 636 (King), our Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's argument that instruments coming within that section never could be possessed lawfully.

Concluding that a school is not a commercial establishment

Reasoning that “[i]f there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and [the Court] need not resort to legislative history to determine the statute's true meaning”

Providing that a "person who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary"

Shoplifting requires "entering a commercial establishment"

Forbidding the Legislature from amending enactments made by voter initiative if the amendments are inconsistent with said initiative