People v. Williams

14 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed January 28, 2014

    The officers were appropriately responding to defendant's own security concern, and would not reasonably have expected him to produce a confession. (Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 188.) Turning now to this case, we begin by noting that the trial court found that although the deputies were aware that Mota had been charged with murder, they were not specifically aware that, in addition to murder, Mota had been charged with an enhancement and an additional crime based on his gang membership.

  2. PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed August 25, 2014

    (See, e.g., People v. Rogers, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 350; People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1216; Peoplev. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 697; People v. Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 478; People v. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 201; People v. Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th a at pp. 90-91; People v. Valdez, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 180; People y. McKinzie (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1302, 1364; People v. Thomas, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 949; People v. Streeter, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 268; and People v. Tully, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1068.) As demonstrated in appellant’s opening brief (AOB 248-251), the Court’s reasoningin respect to written findings regarding aggravating factors is unsound and should bereevaluated.

  3. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Appellant, Jose Mota-Avendano, Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed August 12, 2014

    Gomez, 192 Cal.App.4th at 632. And in Williams, 56 Cal.4th at 188, n. 15, this Court disapproved Morris. Gomez also relied upon United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006) 462 F.3d 1124, 1132 in which the court held that asking the defendant for 23 Mota Ans. Brief - Merits his nicknameor “moniker” qualified as a “routine booking question” becauseit merely wentto the defendant’s identity.

  4. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Appellant, Gamaliel Elizalde, Petition for Review

    Filed January 22, 2014

    The officers were appropriately responding to defendant'sown security concern, and would not reasonably have expected him to produce a confession. (Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 188.) Turning nowto this case, we begin by noting that the trial court found that although the deputies were aware that Mota had been charged with murder, they were not specifically aware that, in addition to murder, Mota had been charged with an AS enhancementand an additional crimebased on his gang membership.

  5. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Appellant, Jose Mota-Avendano, Petition for Review

    Filed January 22, 2014

    The officers were appropriately responding to defendant's own security concern, and would not reasonably have expected him to produce a confession. (Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 188.) Turning now tothis case, we begin by noting that the trial court foundthat although the deputies were aware that Mota had beencharged with murder, they were not specifically awarethat, in additionto murder,Mota hadbeen charged with an 45 not ask Mota this question in orderto elicit an incriminating response.

  6. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Appellant, Javier Gomez, Petition for Review

    Filed January 22, 2014

    The officers were appropriately responding to defendant's own security concern, and would not reasonably have expected him to produce a confession. (Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 188.) Turning nowto this case, we begin by noting thatthe trial court found that although the deputies were aware that Mota had been charged with murder, they were not specifically aware that, in addition to murder, Mota had been charged with an 45 enhancementand an additional crime based on his gang membership.

  7. PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

    Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed September 11, 2014

    (Peoplev. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th 165, 187.) This is an objective assessmentthat looks to the totality of the circumstances, taking into accountthe nature of the questions, when and where they were asked, the standardizationofthe question, the knowledge andintent ofthe officer asking the question, the administrative need for the inquiry, and any other indications that the questions were designedtoelicit incriminating evidence.

  8. PEOPLE v. CORDOVA (JOSEPH SEFERINO)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed April 28, 2014

    193 jury’s penalty determination, does not infringe upon a defendant’s constitutional rights. (People v. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 197 [it is a matter of “established precedent”that instructing the jury not consider the impact of the sentence upon a defendant’s family does not violate the Eighth Amendment].) More broadly, excluding irrelevant evidence does not violate the Constitution.

  9. PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (BILLY JOE)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed October 21, 2014

    In this context, Chapman means“no reasonable possibility” that the error affected the penalty phase verdict.” (People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 196; People v. Abel (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 939; People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 193; People v. Davis, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 618; Peoplev. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 799.

  10. PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (GEORGE)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed September 11, 2014

    This claim has also been repeatedly rejected. (People v. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 201; People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103, 134-135.) E. Factor (i): Appellant claims his constitutional rights were violated because the jury wasinstructed it could considerhis age in its determination of the proper sentence.