Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
39 California opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Enracagreen2 sentences2022(People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 761 [discussing perfect and imperfect self-defense].) Rivera argues this instruction was error because the evidence does not support the conclusion he provoked either Morales or Nunez. 2022(People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 761 [discussing perfect and imperfect self-defense].) Rivera argues this instruction was error because the evidence does not support the conclusion he provoked either Morales or Nunez. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1975(See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-598 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ]; People v. Williams, 30 Cal.App.3d 502, 510 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 324 ].) Thus, we conclude that defendant placed his character in issue. 1975(See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-598 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ]; People v. Williams, 30 Cal.App.3d 502, 510 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 324 ].) Thus, we conclude that defendant placed his character in issue. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1975(See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-598 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ]; People v. Williams, 30 Cal.App.3d 502, 510 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 324 ].) Thus, we conclude that defendant placed his character in issue. 1975(See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-598 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ]; People v. Williams, 30 Cal.App.3d 502, 510 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 324 ].) Thus, we conclude that defendant placed his character in issue. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crittlegreen2 sentences2014(People v. 7 Snow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1148 [finding defendant forfeited claim that insufficient evidence supported a finding of ability to pay probation report and supervision fees]; People v. Valtakis, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1068, 1071-1076 [a defendant cannot challenge on appeal the issue of noncompliance with statutory procedures while imposing a section 1203.1b fee when he failed to assert any objections in the trial court]; People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 597-599 [the defendant forfeited his claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his ability to pay 2013(People v. Valtakis (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1072 .) "Since [Cole] did not raise the issue in the trial court, we reject his contention that the [restitution award] must be reversed because the court did not make a finding of [his] ability to pay [it], and nothing in the record shows he had the ability to pay." (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371 .) Moreover, our Supreme Court recently rejected an argument similar to Cole's in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 , where it held that a defendant cannot challenge for the first time on appeal an award of a booking fee fo | 1 | 2 |
People v. Westgreen2 sentences1984Obviously, such a defendant cannot claim lack of notice. ( People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612 [ 91 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 477 P.2d 409 ]; People v. Ramos (1972) 25 Cal. App.3d 529, 539 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 230 ].) Nor can it reasonably be contended that such an instruction is barred by some abstract notion of "mutuality," stemming from the limitations upon the prosecutor in such a situation. 1984Obviously, such a defendant cannot claim lack of notice. ( People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612 [ 91 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 477 P.2d 409 ]; People v. Ramos (1972) 25 Cal. App.3d 529, 539 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 230 ].) Nor can it reasonably be contended that such an instruction is barred by some abstract notion of "mutuality," stemming from the limitations upon the prosecutor in such a situation. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ramosgreen2 sentences1984Obviously, such a defendant cannot claim lack of notice. ( People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612 [ 91 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 477 P.2d 409 ]; People v. Ramos (1972) 25 Cal. App.3d 529, 539 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 230 ].) Nor can it reasonably be contended that such an instruction is barred by some abstract notion of "mutuality," stemming from the limitations upon the prosecutor in such a situation. 1984Obviously, such a defendant cannot claim lack of notice. ( People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612 [ 91 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 477 P.2d 409 ]; People v. Ramos (1972) 25 Cal. App.3d 529, 539 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 230 ].) Nor can it reasonably be contended that such an instruction is barred by some abstract notion of "mutuality," stemming from the limitations upon the prosecutor in such a situation. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wilkinsongreen1 sentence2025(Davis v. Municipal Court (1988) 46 Cal.3d 64, 87 ; People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838 (citing United States v. Batchelder (1979) 442 U.S. 114 , 124-125).) Similarly, applying this principle to section 290, the provision in subdivision (d)(4)(A) does not violate equal protection in permitting the Attorney General to exercise his discretion to designate approximately three years in federal prison from the date of his conviction in 2009 until his release in 2012. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Visciottigreen1 sentence2020(See People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 72 [a defendant cannot claim the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior bad conduct when the defendant elicited or introduced such evidence].) We disagree that defense counsel’s questions opened the door for Daymen to testify generally about defendant’s criminal history. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Matagreen1 sentence2015(People v. Mata (2013) 57 Cal.4th 178, 185 [consent should be implied when party fails to object and continues to participate in proceeding challenged on appeal (there, reseating an improperly challenged juror)].) Defendant is also incorrect that trial counsel’s action or inaction cannot forfeit his rights; requesting a mistrial, or choosing whether or not to continue with a particular juror or jury, are not among the constitutional rights we deem to be so fundamental that a defendant’s express personal waiver of these is necessary. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wagnergreen1 sentence2015(See People v. Wagner, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 617 ["A defendant cannot bar the prosecution from rebutting favorable character evidence merely by characterizing the direct examination as being narrower in scope than in fact it was."].)3 3 We note that, generally, a prosecutor may cross-examine a defense good character witness regarding the defendant's prior conviction, but may not present independent evidence of the conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.red1 sentence2014Respondent argues that “‘when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.’ [Citation.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 .) “A defendant cannot challenge a lower court’s ruling and then ‘augment the record’ with information not presented to (or withheld from) the lower court.” (People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 332 .) 8. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dykesgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 798-799 [on appeal, the defendant cannot challenge court‟s response to jury question, under Penal Code section 1138, when response was correct under the law and was 12 approved by defense counsel].) However, to resolve defendant‟s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will proceed to the merits of the argument. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Buttramgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Parhamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Roblesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McKaskle v. Wigginsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Faretta v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chi Ko Wongred | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ragengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Newellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bright
red
2 sentences2021(People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652, 671 , overruled on another point in People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535 , 550 & fn. 6.) A defendant cannot claim a lack of notice when he expressly or impliedly consents to have the trier of fact consider the enhancement based on the court’s proposed instructions and verdict forms. 2021(People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652, 671 , overruled on another point in People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535 , 550 & fn. 6.) A defendant cannot claim a lack of notice when he expressly or impliedly consents to have the trier of fact consider the enhancement based on the court’s proposed instructions and verdict forms. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Houston
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186 , 1226-1229.) As to instructions, the trial court, without objection, instructed with CALCRIM No. 1402 that, if it found appellant guilty of the attempted murder or robbery, and the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, it “must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that one of the principals personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during that crime and caused great 41 bodily injury.” The instruction required that the People prove the allegation as to each appellant and return a separate 2021(People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186 , 1226-1229.) As to instructions, the trial court, without objection, instructed with CALCRIM No. 1402 that, if it found appellant guilty of the attempted murder or robbery, and the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, it “must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that one of the principals personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during that crime and caused great 41 bodily injury.” The instruction required that the People prove the allegation as to each appellant and return a separate | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Seel
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652, 671 , overruled on another point in People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535 , 550 & fn. 6.) A defendant cannot claim a lack of notice when he expressly or impliedly consents to have the trier of fact consider the enhancement based on the court’s proposed instructions and verdict forms. 2021(People v. Bright (1996) 12 Cal.4th 652, 671 , overruled on another point in People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535 , 550 & fn. 6.) A defendant cannot claim a lack of notice when he expressly or impliedly consents to have the trier of fact consider the enhancement based on the court’s proposed instructions and verdict forms. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. McCullough
green
2 sentences2014(People v. 7 Snow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1148 [finding defendant forfeited claim that insufficient evidence supported a finding of ability to pay probation report and supervision fees]; People v. Valtakis, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1068, 1071-1076 [a defendant cannot challenge on appeal the issue of noncompliance with statutory procedures while imposing a section 1203.1b fee when he failed to assert any objections in the trial court]; People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 597-599 [the defendant forfeited his claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his ability to pay 2013(People v. Valtakis (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1072 .) "Since [Cole] did not raise the issue in the trial court, we reject his contention that the [restitution award] must be reversed because the court did not make a finding of [his] ability to pay [it], and nothing in the record shows he had the ability to pay." (People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371 .) Moreover, our Supreme Court recently rejected an argument similar to Cole's in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 , where it held that a defendant cannot challenge for the first time on appeal an award of a booking fee fo | 2 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Valtakis
green
2 sentences2014(People v. 7 Snow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1148 [finding defendant forfeited claim that insufficient evidence supported a finding of ability to pay probation report and supervision fees]; People v. Valtakis, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1068, 1071-1076 [a defendant cannot challenge on appeal the issue of noncompliance with statutory procedures while imposing a section 1203.1b fee when he failed to assert any objections in the trial court]; People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 597-599 [the defendant forfeited his claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his ability to pay 2014(People v. 7 Snow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1148 [finding defendant forfeited claim that insufficient evidence supported a finding of ability to pay probation report and supervision fees]; People v. Valtakis, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1068, 1071-1076 [a defendant cannot challenge on appeal the issue of noncompliance with statutory procedures while imposing a section 1203.1b fee when he failed to assert any objections in the trial court]; People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 597-599 [the defendant forfeited his claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his ability to pay | 2 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Placencia
green
2 sentences2013The court in Placencia, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th 489 , applied clear direction from the Supreme Court that guilty pleas cannot be challenged on appeal without complying with section 1237.5. 2013People v. Placencia (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 489 , held a defendant cannot challenge the denial of a motion to vacate a guilty plea under section 1016.5 without first complying with section 1237.5‟s requirements. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Panizzon
green
1 sentence2026Code, § 1237.5; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 , 77–79 [a defendant cannot challenge a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement without a certificate of probable cause].) The record does not demonstrate the existence of any such issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Viet Le
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Le (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 516, 528 .) But a defendant cannot claim to have acted in a heat of passion “[i]f sufficient time has elapsed for one’s passions to ‘cool off’ and for judgment to be restored.” (Beltran, at p. 951.) The trial court’s instructions here accurately relayed the law on heat of passion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Davis v. Municipal Court for San Francisco Judicial District
green
1 sentence2025(Davis v. Municipal Court (1988) 46 Cal.3d 64, 87 ; People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838 (citing United States v. Batchelder (1979) 442 U.S. 114 , 124-125).) Similarly, applying this principle to section 290, the provision in subdivision (d)(4)(A) does not violate equal protection in permitting the Attorney General to exercise his discretion to designate approximately three years in federal prison from the date of his conviction in 2009 until his release in 2012. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Batchelder
green
1 sentence2025(Davis v. Municipal Court (1988) 46 Cal.3d 64, 87 ; People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838 (citing United States v. Batchelder (1979) 442 U.S. 114 , 124-125).) Similarly, applying this principle to section 290, the provision in subdivision (d)(4)(A) does not violate equal protection in permitting the Attorney General to exercise his discretion to designate approximately three years in federal prison from the date of his conviction in 2009 until his release in 2012. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Beltran
green
1 sentence2024Code, § 192, subd. (a); People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 942 .) “Heat of passion arises if, ‘ “at the time of the killing, the reason of the accused was obscured or disturbed by passion to such an extent as would cause the ordinarily reasonable person of average disposition to act rashly and without deliberation and reflection, and from such passion rather than from judgment.” ’ ” (Beltran, at p. 942.) But a defendant cannot claim to have acted in a heat of passion “[i]f sufficient time has elapsed for one’s passions to ‘cool off’ and for judgment to be restored.” (Id. at p. 951.) 5 Co | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2024While a defendant cannot challenge the exercise of sentencing discretion for the first time on appeal (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 ), here Rios claims that the court erred in rejecting, as a factor in mitigation, that there were no sexual complaints against Rios until Doe despite the fact that he has coached a myriad of other girls over multiple years. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2021For instance, in People v. Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392 , the defendant was convicted of petty theft with three prior convictions, each of which qualified as a strike for purposes of the three strikes law. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Felix
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Felix (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 426, 431-433 ; see 11 The court did not err in ruling the prosecution's proffered rebuttal character evidence could be presented to the jury. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
The People v. Snow CA3
green
1 sentence2014(People v. 7 Snow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1148 [finding defendant forfeited claim that insufficient evidence supported a finding of ability to pay probation report and supervision fees]; People v. Valtakis, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1068, 1071-1076 [a defendant cannot challenge on appeal the issue of noncompliance with statutory procedures while imposing a section 1203.1b fee when he failed to assert any objections in the trial court]; People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 597-599 [the defendant forfeited his claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his ability to pay | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2014Respondent argues that “‘when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.’ [Citation.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 .) “A defendant cannot challenge a lower court’s ruling and then ‘augment the record’ with information not presented to (or withheld from) the lower court.” (People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 332 .) 8. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Breverman
red
1 sentence2013(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 163 .) The evidence favorable to the prosecution showed that Martinez had a history of kicking Jones’s car. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Gibson, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1468 .) “[B]ecause the appropriateness of a restitution fine is fact-specific, as a matter of fairness to the People, a defendant should not be permitted to contest for the first time on appeal the sufficiency of the record to support his ability to pay the fine. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Francis green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Geiger red | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| United States v. C. Scott Flewitt, and B. Todd Flewitt green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Simpson green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Sava green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Boyd green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. White green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Sesslin green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| People v. Boyd green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| People v. Jewett green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Graham v. Manhattan Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Babcock v. Los Angeles Traction Co. neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.