Filed November 26, 2013
But, those same factors weighed differently in Correa, and permitted this Court to correct the legally unsupported principle announcedin the Neal footnote. (Correa, 26 supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 344.) Accordingly, reconsideration of any ofthe exceptionsis likewise an individualized task.
Filed September 19, 2013
And it is clear that the impropriety of convictions on both a greater and a lesser, necessarily included offense forms yet another basis on whichto affirm the judgment. “A judicially created exception to the general rule permitting multiple conviction ‘prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses’” (People v. Correa, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 337, quoting People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1034) — ie, a crime that “cannot be committed without also necessarily committing a lesser offense’” (Correa, at p. 337, quoting People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288). “Under the elementstest, if the statutory elements of the greater offense include all of the statutory elementsof the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.” (People v. Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1227.)
Filed June 17, 2016
(Dissent 11, emphasis added.) 27 development of the “staying” practice under 654 (see People v. Correa, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 337 [“Whensection 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”}), these criticisms rest upon the faulty premise that the convictions constitute separate offenses. By its terms, section 654 only applies to “[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law.”
Filed October 22, 2015
Rule of Court 8.500(c) makes clear that this Court will generally -18- accept the statementofthe facts and issues contained in a Courtof Appeal’s opinion, “‘unless the party has called the Court of Appeal’s attention to any alleged omission or misstatementofan issueorfact in a petition for rehearing.” This Court has consistently enforcedthis rule. (See, €.., People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 978-979; People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 591; People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334, fn. 3; People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 23, fn. 3.) The Court has also noted that refusing to allow a party to attack the Court of Appeal’s factual discussionis particularly appropriate, where, as here, the party making the attack not only failed to seek rehearing,butfiled a publication request.
Filed June 25, 2014
As suchthat right is protected against judicial action by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution.” (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334, citing Marks v. United States (1977) 430 U.S. 188, 191-192; Peoplev. Superior -30- APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF ON THE MERITS Court (Sparks) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 1, 21; People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4tSh 403, 431.
Filed March 27, 2013
(Ibid.) Citing Neal v. State ofCalifornia (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19-20, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, the Harrison court concludedthatthe “intent or objective” underlying the criminal conduct wastherefore not singular, but several. (People v. Harrison, supra,\ Cal.App.3d 115, 122.)
Filed September 10, 2012
Accordingly, this court is entitled to rely on the statement offacts in the opinion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(c)(2); see People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 334, fn. 3.) Additional facts appear in footnotes 5 through 7, post. “At a change-of-plea hearing, defendant’s trial counsel announced that defendant would be ‘pleading as charged’ and admitting the ‘strike prior allegation,’ and‘[i]t’s anticipated at the time of sentencing the Court will grant an oral Romero motion, [and] thereafter sentence Mr. Clanc[e]y to five years in state prison.”