Cal. Codes » Penal Code
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 3 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No part of it is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1947–2023 · leading case: Tapia v. Superior Court, 807 P.2d 434 (Cal. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tapia v. Superior Court, 807 P.2d 434 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 4× “, Pen. Code, § 3 [stating that "No part of" Penal Code "is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”
People v. Padilla, 509 P.3d 975 (Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “” (Pen. Code, § 3, italics added.) This direct limitation on retroactivity remains a part of the code to this day.”
People v. Alford, 171 P.3d 32 (Cal. 2007). · cites it 2× “2003, ch. 159, §§ 25, 27.) [2] As explained in greater detail below, the Assembly Bill 1759 was one of a number of trailer bills related to the 2003-2004 State Budget.”
People v. Esquivel, 487 P.3d 974 (Cal. 2021). “746–748 [discussing Pen. Code, § 3 and Gov. Code, § 9608].) 4 PEOPLE v.”
DiGenova v. State Bd. of Educ., 367 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1962). · cites it 4× “, § 3; Pen. Code, § 3.) This is a rule of construction originally developed by the courts.”
In Re Chavez, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Discussion Penal Code section 3 states: “No part of [the Penal Code] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”
People v. Hayes, 783 P.2d 719 (Cal. 1989). · cites it 2× “, § 3; Pen. Code, § 3; see also Lab. Code, § 4.) Such provisions codify the common-law principle that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively.”
People v. D.N. (In re D.N.), 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “1 ( Pen. Code, § 3 ; see People v . Conley (2016) 63 Cal.”
People v. Foster, 447 P.3d 228 (Cal. 2019). “18(k) operated retroactively by applying " 'the principle [codified in **232 Penal Code section 3 ] that, "in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the [lawmakers] .”
Andrus v. Mun. Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “[2] Penal Code section 3 is similar to Code of Civil Procedure section 3.”
People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., 9 Cal. App. 5th 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “Because we disagree that applying Proposition 57 to require a juvenile court judge to assess whether real party in interest will go to trial in adult or juvenile court constitutes a retroactive application of the new law, we deny the petition.”
Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 420 P.2d 735 (Cal. 1966). · cites it 2× “1 does not apply to any of the four judgments here on appeal. [18] We begin with the general presumption that legislative changes do not apply retroactively unless the Legislature expresses its intention that they should do so.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.