green
Positive treatment
7.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Nelson
Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must make an “independent determination of whether the defendant’s plea is made knowingly and intelligently through a colloquy wherein the defendant is questioned about his decision and the constitutional rights he is waiving.” State v. Pearson, 03-652, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/9/03), 861 So.2d 283, 287 , writ denied, 04-166 (La.6/4/04), 876 So.2d 73 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1007 , 125, S.Ct. 626, 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004). | r,Under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), the decision to plead guilty will n…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bedford
See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 576 Pa. 23, 52 , 838 A.2d 663, 680 (2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1008 , 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004) (stating: “[Ajlthough generally no reference may be made at trial in a criminal case to a defendant’s arrest or incarceration for a previous crime, there is no rule in Pennsylvania which prohibits reference to a defendant’s incarceration awaiting trial or arrest for the crimes charged”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Robinson
See Commonwealth v. (Raymond) Johnson, 576 Pa. 23 , 838 A.2d 663, 682 (2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004); Commonwealth v. (Roderick) Johnson, 572 Pa.283, 815 A.2d 563, 575 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Patterson
As noted by appellant, a jury, "in order to refresh [its] recollection, [may request] a reading of a portion of the testimony actually given at the trial[;] it is [then] a matter within the discretion of the trial court whether to grant such [a] request." Commonwealth v. Peterman , 430 Pa. 627 , 244 A.2d 723 , 726 (1968) ; see also Commonwealth v. Johnson , 576 Pa. 23 , 838 A.2d 663 , 677 (2003), cert. denied , 543 U.S. 1008 , 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hubbs v. Alamao
“However, once a petition is filed, there is no additional limit on the time in which the allegations of the petition must be tried.” Id.; People v. Superior Court (Ramirez), 70 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 (1999); see also Orozco v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 170, 179 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 573 (2004) (“The statutory scheme does not require that the recommitment order be obtained before the expiration of the underlying term.” (emphasis in original)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 617 , 160 L.Ed.2d 471 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Monsivais Salazar
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
04-6486.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 29, 2004.
Published
MONSIVAIS SALAZAR
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
No. 04-6486.
Supreme Court of United States.
November 29, 2004.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.