Section 1 - Short title; parts

9 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. HOUSTON (ERIC C.)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed September 17, 2007

    ection 190.3 .............................................. 479 California Penal Code Section 190.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p assim California Penal Code Section 664 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p assim .............................................. California Penal Code Section 939.6 272 California Penal Code Section 1 1 18.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p assim California Penal Code Section 1 122 ................................................. 418 [xxviii] California Penal Code Section 1 127 ................................................. 43 1 California Penal Code Section 1 158 ................................................. 500 California Penal Code Section 1 158a ............................................... 500 California Penal Code Section 1170 ................................................. 489 California Penal Code Section 1 170.1 .............................. 329. 330. 332 California Penal Code Section 1239 ........................... 13. 21 8. 240. 255 .......................................................... Title 21 U.S.C. Section 848(k) 468 Other Authorities 1978 Voter's Pamphlet ...................................................................... 462 ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases February 2003 ......................... 240 Amnesty International. "The Death Penalty: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries" (Nov . 24. 2006) ....................................... 503 Curnutt.

  2. PEOPLE v. SATTIEWHITE (CHRISTOPHER)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed July 18, 2008

    It is further alleged that the above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1 192.7(~)(1)." (1 CT 1 .) Both the statutory reference ("section 187(a) of the Penal Code") and the description of the crime ("did willfully, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought murder") establish that appellant was charged exclusively with second degree malice-murder in violation of section 187, not with first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 1 89.20 Section 187, the statute cited in the Indictment, defines second degree murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without the additional elements (i.e., willfulness, premeditation, and 20 The Indictment also alleged two special circumstances: kidnaping-murder and rape-murder in connection with Count 1. (1 CT 1-3.) These allegations, however, did not change the elements of the charged offense.

  3. PEOPLE v. FRANKLIN

    Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed February 23, 2016

    This is a meaningful distinction. Legislature has the power to remedy a constitutional * Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455 (“Miller”). * All further unassignedreferences are to the California Penal Code. -1- violation by reducing punishmentto a level that is no longer a functionallife withoutparole sentence, which is what Wyominghasdone.’ In contrast, section 3051 leaves the unconstitutional sentence intact.

  4. PEOPLE v. AVILA

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed July 26, 2013

    csseevavaeesers 48, 55, 60 § 190.3, sub. (k) oeeesecesssesessesssssesesessssesssssssssssccssecscecacacacesececeraeesass 17 § 190.4, Subd (€)...0... sc ecsecesssssssssssescesseesesescscscscassuscsesscssscssscseuersessasatsesesscsess 2 § 207... esecesscsseseccesssedereecssseseesssssesesasscacsesevssesesssscesssssscacecsasacercucasacesscacaueces 1 § 288, SUB. (O) ooesesesssesesssssssescssssssecsesssssscsescscsvevecscasesesececnsseseaeass 1 § O54ccccsescsssssesesesesssenesessscassssesssssscsscssesesastssssscscssasssassvavesacaeacagacacaraeaears 2 § 1033ooeecseesseeees sesesesssesevevscacsseneseaesesessesesesssesessesseseseonsaseeaticssssesesessens 21 § 1033, SUDC. (8)... eeesesesesesesessssscsesescsesessscstssscsessessscesseecstacatacaeaveaees 20 BODeeseecsseseeeseseeesssessssescsesessessessssescscssssesscesseavesesessaceceseseeeess 42 BSLeecaceestsessssscsesescsstecssssescecsssssssessvseseavacevacacaeessseeseeeeateseneeeaseas 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS California Constitution ATtICle 1, § 1 oeecasecteesecesessscscsesecsssssssscscscssssssesesvsssestecsvacecessseserseqeaacavaes 20 Article T, § 15 veeeessssessesssssessscessessesesssscacsssacseeseecasssecescaeseassacstensadersanscees 20 Article 1, § 16occessssessecssssccsssescsscscsecscsecsecscsaceccsssseecscssessesacssesuesececsases 20 article I, § 28, subd. (b) oo...ccc eccsscscssscscscscscescerscscseersvacseessseeseesatscseasseseees 1 Article I], § 15oessssesessssesesssscssssscsescsscsssesscsssssavasesecsesecsceeseseseucsssnsesacses 50 Article I], § 16... cceesssesssssecessssesesssssesevsssssssssscscsvsvsvseecacacsaeacecseeasacasaeasaes 50 article TT, § 17oeesesssssssscssscsscsscccsecscsececeesecscstessacssssescassesacsavsesesaseaesececs 50 United States Constitution Sth Amendment..........ccccccsssssssscsssssssescsersssesecesseceevevcececteseessaesesacseresesaeacecess 20 Oth Amendment...........cccceescsesssscescsssssssscscessececseseecsssvececaceacecseesessacaeseseseees 20 14th Amendment..0.......ccccccecesssccesssescsc

  5. PEOPLE v. MENDOZA (HUBER JOEL)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed November 28, 2011

    First, the trial court failed to consider the federal requirements of competency. (Section 1, below.) Secondly, appellant presented a wealth of expert testimony as to his present inability to assist in his defense which was unrefuted by the prosecution's presentation.

  6. PEOPLE v. RUNYAN

    Appellant's Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 25, 2011

    ” Consequently, not only is Marsy’s Law inapplicable, butit is untimely as well. C. The Victim’s Estate Was Improperly Awarded Restitution Under Section 1202.4 Of The California Penal Code 1. Section 1202.4 Requires Restitution to be Paid to a Victim or Victims and Defines the Term “Victim” California Penal Code § 1202.4 requires restitution to be paid to a victim or victims and defines the term “victim.” Subdivision (f) of the aforementioned code section provides the language necessary to determine whether the question ofrestitution can be considered: Furthermore, the sole fact that Respondentraises the issue of waiver in terms of Marsy’s Law indicates that they concede that ex post facto may apply and accordingly, waiver of such objections only works in their favor.

  7. PEOPLE v. CASE

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed April 11, 2011

    In this way, the errors at the penalty phase — even if individually not found to be prejudicial — precluded the possibility that the jury reached an appropriate verdict in accordance with the state death penalty statute or the federal constitutional requirements of a fundamentally fair, reliable, non- arbitrary and individualized sentencing determination. Reversal of the death judgment is mandated here because it cannot be shown that these penalty errors, individually, collectively, or in combination with the errors that occurred at the guilt phase, had no effect on the penalty verdict. (See Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 U.S. 393, 39; Skipper v. South Carolina (1986) 476 U.S.1, 8; Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 341.) Accordingly, the combined impactofthe variouserrors in this case requires reversal of appellant’s convictions and death sentence.

  8. PEOPLE v. CAGE (MICKY RAY)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 14, 2011

    “Evidence that a defendant has committed crimes other than those currently chargedis not admissible to prove that the defendantis a person of bad character or has a criminal disposition.” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 242 P.3d 105, 130-131; Evid. Code §1 101.) Evidence Code section 1101, 69 subdivision (b), permits evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or . other misdeeds for limited purposes and only whencertain prerequisites are satisfied.

  9. PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (COREY)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed July 17, 2009

    85 139 California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice 168 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) § 27.8 85 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) § 27.9 86 XVI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PlaintifflRespondent, v. COREY LEIGH WILLIAMS, Defendant/Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAPIYAL CASE No. S093756 (Contra Costa Superior Court No. 961903-02) STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This is an automatic appeal following a sentence of death. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 10, 1996, a Grand Jury returned indictments against appellant and codefendant Dalton Lolohea charging each with the murder (§187) of Maria Elena Corrieo (Count One) and Maria Eugenia Roberts (Count Two). The indictment alleged three special circumstances: multiple I. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the California Penal Code. -1- murder (§ 190.2 subd. (a)(3)), murder while engaged in the commission of burglary (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 459) and murder in the commission of robbery (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 211). Personal use of a firearm was alleged against appellant as to each count.