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.
10 California opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2024 3 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. Neelygreen2 sentences2015(People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 913 ].) DISPOSITION As to defendants Mayle and Rankins-Mayle, the trial court is directed to strike the true findings on the enhancement allegations under section 186.11. 2015(People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 913 ].) DISPOSITION As to defendants Mayle and Rankins-Mayle, the trial court is directed to strike the true findings on the enhancement allegations under section 186.11. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Valenzuelagreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425 [“[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant”]; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 (Buycks) [same].) DISPOSITION The victim restitution order is vacated. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Buycksgreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425 [“[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant”]; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 (Buycks) [same].) DISPOSITION The victim restitution order is vacated. | 1 | 1 |
P. v. Denman CA4/2green1 sentence2020However, if the pattern of related felony conduct involves the taking of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), but not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the fine shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or double the value of the taking, whichever is greater.” 48 “Section 186.11, subdivision (c) requires imposition of a specified fine, if the defendant is ‘convicted of two or more felonies, as specified in subdivision (a),’ and the jury finds true the section 186.11, subdivision (a) allegation.” (People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1251 , f | 1 | 1 |
People v. Griffisgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Griffis (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 956, 961 [ 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 508 ].) However, prison sentences are imposed if the defendant has current or prior serious or violent felony convictions, is required to register as a sex offender, or has sustained a section 186.11 aggravated white-collar crime enhancement. 2014(People v. Griffis (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 956, 961 [ 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 508 ].) However, prison sentences are imposed if the defendant has current or prior serious or violent felony convictions, is required to register as a sex offender, or has sustained a section 186.11 aggravated white-collar crime enhancement. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Oganesyangreen2 sentences2012The sentence for such defendants is to be served in state prison. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3).) Realignment does not affect a defendant’s eligibility for dispositions other than imprisonment, such as pretrial diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or a grant of probation pursuant to section 1203.1. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(4).) Accordingly, such a defendant is not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine. (§ 1202.45; cf. People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ]; People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 157 ].) The amendments to sections 3 2012The sentence for such defendants is to be served in state prison. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3).) Realignment does not affect a defendant’s eligibility for dispositions other than imprisonment, such as pretrial diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or a grant of probation pursuant to section 1203.1. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(4).) Accordingly, such a defendant is not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine. (§ 1202.45; cf. People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ]; People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 157 ].) The amendments to sections 3 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2012The sentence for such defendants is to be served in state prison. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3).) Realignment does not affect a defendant’s eligibility for dispositions other than imprisonment, such as pretrial diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or a grant of probation pursuant to section 1203.1. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(4).) Accordingly, such a defendant is not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine. (§ 1202.45; cf. People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ]; People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 157 ].) The amendments to sections 3 2012The sentence for such defendants is to be served in state prison. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3).) Realignment does not affect a defendant’s eligibility for dispositions other than imprisonment, such as pretrial diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or a grant of probation pursuant to section 1203.1. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(4).) Accordingly, such a defendant is not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine. (§ 1202.45; cf. People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ]; People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 157 ].) The amendments to sections 3 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sengpadychithgreen2 sentences2006(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 324-326 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ].) Section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2), provides additional punishment where a “pattern of related felony conduct” by the defendant involves a taking exceeding $500,000. 2006(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 324-326 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ].) Section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2), provides additional punishment where a “pattern of related felony conduct” by the defendant involves a taking exceeding $500,000. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estrada
green
1 sentence2024There is no evidence the Legislature intended to impose shorter prison terms in amending section 12022.6 Citing In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 , Fink argues that we must strike the enhancement under section 186.11. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2024The probation report also identified one circumstance in mitigation: that Chapman had no prior significant record of criminal conduct. 14 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . 15 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 49 At sentencing, the trial court exercised its discretion to impose the upper term of five years on the base count, count 102, and the upper term of five years on the enhancement under section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
1 sentence2024The probation report also identified one circumstance in mitigation: that Chapman had no prior significant record of criminal conduct. 14 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . 15 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 49 At sentencing, the trial court exercised its discretion to impose the upper term of five years on the base count, count 102, and the upper term of five years on the enhancement under section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2022It enables the punishment to fit the crime as well as the perpetrator.’ [Citation.] Where a court chooses to dismiss or strike under section 1385, ‘the reason for dismissal must be “that which would motivate a reasonable judge.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582 , 587.) The Attorney General insists there were no facts that would motivate a reasonable judge to strike the section 186.11 enhancement in this case. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Chavez
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218 , 224-225.) “The judicial authority to dismiss a criminal action or allegation in furtherance of justice is statutory and may be withdrawn by the Legislature. [Citation.] A court may exercise such authority unless, in a given context, the Legislature has clearly evidenced a contrary intent. [Citations.] Courts will not interpret another statute as eliminating the power to dismiss under section 1385 unless there is clear legislative direction to that effect. [Citation.]” (People v. Chavez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 110, 117 .) At sentencing, the trial court not | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Fuentes
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218 , 224-225.) “The judicial authority to dismiss a criminal action or allegation in furtherance of justice is statutory and may be withdrawn by the Legislature. [Citation.] A court may exercise such authority unless, in a given context, the Legislature has clearly evidenced a contrary intent. [Citations.] Courts will not interpret another statute as eliminating the power to dismiss under section 1385 unless there is clear legislative direction to that effect. [Citation.]” (People v. Chavez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 110, 117 .) At sentencing, the trial court not | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lai
green
1 sentence2020However, if the pattern of related felony conduct involves the taking of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), but not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the fine shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or double the value of the taking, whichever is greater.” 48 “Section 186.11, subdivision (c) requires imposition of a specified fine, if the defendant is ‘convicted of two or more felonies, as specified in subdivision (a),’ and the jury finds true the section 186.11, subdivision (a) allegation.” (People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1251 , f | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Lo Cicero
green
2 sentences2013II Defendant’s Washington Felonies Are Sentencing Factors That Did Not Have to Be Pled or Proven to a Jury Defendant contends he was entitled to be sentenced to county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h) because a prior conviction that results in an increased penalty—like a sentence served in prison rather than in jail—must be pled and proven to a jury under People v. Lo Cicero (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1186 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 913 , 459 P.2d 241 ]. 2013II Defendant’s Washington Felonies Are Sentencing Factors That Did Not Have to Be Pled or Proven to a Jury Defendant contends he was entitled to be sentenced to county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h) because a prior conviction that results in an increased penalty—like a sentence served in prison rather than in jail—must be pled and proven to a jury under People v. Lo Cicero (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1186 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 913 , 459 P.2d 241 ]. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Frederick, Mercedes, and Felix appeal and contend that the trial court erred by; 1) denying the suppression motion; 2) precluding expert testimony concerning endless chain schemes; 3) not reinstructing regarding the elements of an endless chain scheme prior to jury deliberations; 4) instructing that sale of an unqualified nonexempt security is a general intent crime; 5) not instructing regarding theft by trick or device, rather than theft by false pretenses; 6) not modifying CALJIC No. 17.01 to require victim unanimity; 7) not defining “related felony conduct” within the section 186.11 taking 2006Frederick, Mercedes, and Felix appeal and contend that the trial court erred by; 1) denying the suppression motion; 2) precluding expert testimony concerning endless chain schemes; 3) not reinstructing regarding the elements of an endless chain scheme prior to jury deliberations; 4) instructing that sale of an unqualified nonexempt security is a general intent crime; 5) not instructing regarding theft by trick or device, rather than theft by false pretenses; 6) not modifying CALJIC No. 17.01 to require victim unanimity; 7) not defining “related felony conduct” within the section 186.11 taking | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2006Frederick, Mercedes, and Felix appeal and contend that the trial court erred by; 1) denying the suppression motion; 2) precluding expert testimony concerning endless chain schemes; 3) not reinstructing regarding the elements of an endless chain scheme prior to jury deliberations; 4) instructing that sale of an unqualified nonexempt security is a general intent crime; 5) not instructing regarding theft by trick or device, rather than theft by false pretenses; 6) not modifying CALJIC No. 17.01 to require victim unanimity; 7) not defining “related felony conduct” within the section 186.11 taking 2006Frederick, Mercedes, and Felix appeal and contend that the trial court erred by; 1) denying the suppression motion; 2) precluding expert testimony concerning endless chain schemes; 3) not reinstructing regarding the elements of an endless chain scheme prior to jury deliberations; 4) instructing that sale of an unqualified nonexempt security is a general intent crime; 5) not instructing regarding theft by trick or device, rather than theft by false pretenses; 6) not modifying CALJIC No. 17.01 to require victim unanimity; 7) not defining “related felony conduct” within the section 186.11 taking | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.