In re Wright

10 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. WHITE

    Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed August 18, 2016

    While consolidation is certainly more preferable than simply striking the conviction, it is unnecessary becausea traditional section 654 stay would accomplish the exact same thing and would avoid creating and litigating an entirely new procedure (“consolidation”) which serves no distinct function than the procedure already in existence. 21 (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 656 [stay procedure “protect[s] the rights of both the state and the defendant”].) An accurate record ofthe facts, as determined by the jury, also matters to the victim.

  2. PEOPLE v. WHITE

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed July 24, 2015

    (/bid.) | "Soon after Niles, this court decided Jn re Wright (1967)65 Cal.2d 650, in which we approved ofthe procedure the Niles court had developed. In Wright we reaffirmed the rule that section 654 does not prohibit multiple convictions, but also declared that it does bar concurrent sentences for such convictions.

  3. PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 30, 2013

    ck count 2, which left the defendant convicted of only count1. Such an approach demonstrates the very concern which gaverise to the modern stay procedure for section 654—it leaves open the possibility that the defendant will receive a windfall if the remaining conviction is overturned on appeal because the defendant would then stand convicted of nothing, as count 2 would no longer be available to take the place of count 1. (See People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1128-1129 [The stay procedure “preserv[es] the possibility of imposition of the stayed portion should a reversal on appeal reduce the unstayed portion of the sentence.”’]; see also People v. Niles (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 749, 756 [“{I]f [the trial court] dismisses the count carrying the lesser penalty, and the conviction on the remaining count should be reversed on appeal, the defendant would stand with no convictionat all.... [which would] risk [] letting a defendant escape altogether,...”]; and see Jn re Wright, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 656,fn. 4.

  4. PEOPLE v. WHITE

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed January 29, 2016

    punishment for the stayed conviction. (See Jn re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 656,fn. 4 [noting thatthe stay procedure, “reasonably reconciles the policies involved in applying section 654 to protect the rights of both the state and the defendant.”].

  5. PEOPLE v. EID

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 15, 2013

    Thus, “‘[w]hen section 954 permits multiple convictions, but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishmentis prohibited. [Citations.]’” (People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 116 (Sloan); In re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 656, fn. 4 [noting that the stay procedure, “reasonably reconcilesthe policies involved in applying section 654to protect the rights of both the state and the defendant.”].

  6. PEOPLE v. BIANE

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 14, 2013

    (See People v, Davis, supra, 210 Cal. at p. 549.) In People v. Anderson (1925) 75 Cal.App.365, 374 (overruled on other groundsas stated in In re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 654 (supercededbystatute as stated in People v. Burns (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 185), the court held that the crime of bribery as defined in Penal Code section 68 could be committed by a private person acting as an accompliceto a public official, even though the private person could not be a direct perpetrator of the crime. This interpretation is also consistent with the legislative purpose of Government Code section 1090 and public policy.

  7. PEOPLE v. MESA

    Appellant's Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed February 14, 2011

    Section 654 is designed to do exactly that where one act violates more than onestatute. (dn re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 653 [“Section 654 forbids multiple punishment by imposition of the proscribed multiple sentences, but not multiple convictions”’].) In addition, Division One held that appellant’s violation of section 186.22(a) did not depend“solely on the underlying offense.”

  8. Levitt v. Yelp! Inc.

    Memorandum in Opposition to 59 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint and to Dismiss or Strike Class Action Allegations

    Filed January 7, 2011

    Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that Yelp was providing them with a service that Yelp threatened to cease; instead, Plaintiffs allege that Yelp threatened them so they would pay for the service. Finally, in People v. Anderson, 75 Cal. App. 365, 374-75 (1925) (disapproved on other grounds In re Wright, 65 Cal. 2d 650 (1967)), the offer to dismiss charges in exchange for payments was not extortion because the defendant could not threaten to accuse the men of a crime because they had already been charged with that crime. See, e.g., Cal.

  9. PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (JACK EMMIT)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed February 13, 2008

    The natural and probable consequences doctrine does not require that the conspirator be present when the natural and probable consequence of the crime is committed. "'It is not necessary that a party to conspiracy shall be present and personally participate with his co- conspirators in all or any of the overt acts."' (People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403,417; quoting People v. Benenato (1 946) 77 Cal.App.2d 350,356, disapproved on another ground in In re Wright (1 967) 65 Cal.2d 650,654-656.) During a discussion about jury instructions, Williams's counsel objected to the conspiracy group of standard instructions because a conspiracy theory was not charged in the information.

  10. PEOPLE v. BIANE

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed December 11, 2012

    Further support for the proposition that private parties can be accomplices to 1090 violations can be found in Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City ofCompton (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1124, wherein the court held that persons in an advisory position to a city may fall within Government Codesection 1090, and that independent contractors with potential to exert considerable influence overa city’s contracting decisions maybe principals under Government Code section 14 1090. (Ud. at pp. 1124-1125.) Moreover, there is no meaningful basis on whichto distinguish aiding and abetting liability under Government Code section 1090 from othersituations in which private parties have been held liable for aiding and abetting public officials in committing crimes, such as bribery (Pen. Code, § 68, People v. Anderson (1925) 75 Cal.App. 365, 374 (overruled on other groundsasstated in Jn re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650, 654 (superseded bystatute as stated in People v. Burns (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 185) and misappropriation ofpublic funds (Pen. Code, § 424, People v. Little (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 797, 805.) The Court of Appeal discussed none of these issues, but instead misread a single statement in D’Amato as creating a wholesale exception to aiding and abetting liability under Government Code section 1090. (Exh.