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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2026 4 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. Eastergreen2 sentences2026(Cf. People v. Easter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 226, 243 [newly developed “word salad” manner of speech can denote incompetence].) Kazemi did not exhibit this behavior; rather, he could communicate with counsel and the court and could convey his version of events at trial. 2026(Cf. People v. Easter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 226, 243 [newly developed “word salad” manner of speech can denote incompetence].) Kazemi did not exhibit this behavior; rather, he could communicate with counsel and the court and could convey his version of events at trial. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Superior Court of Yolo Countygreen2 sentences2018The People also concede[d] that because the judgment was not final, [Eagle] was entitled to benefit retroactively from the changes to section 11379." ( Id at p. 279, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding. ( Id. at pp. 279-280, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The Rodas court pointed out that, in Eagle , it did not consider Penal Code section 1018 or its "effect ... on a trial court's jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea," and thus Eagle was "of no help in determining the effect of the statute on Rodas's ability to belatedl 2018The People also concede[d] that because the judgment was not final, [Eagle] was entitled to benefit retroactively from the changes to section 11379." ( Id at p. 279, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding. ( Id. at pp. 279-280, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The Rodas court pointed out that, in Eagle , it did not consider Penal Code section 1018 or its "effect ... on a trial court's jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea," and thus Eagle was "of no help in determining the effect of the statute on Rodas's ability to belatedl | 1 | 2 |
People v. Freemangreen1 sentence2025(Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 482, fn. 2 [declining to consider arguments that are not sufficiently developed]; People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, fn. 5 (Carroll) [court need not consider constitutional argument void of analysis or authority].) 6 his right.4 Yet, he seems uncertain if this contention is accurate because he also states, “Unless I am mistaken and it is in the record at some point I did not catch, this is a fundamental violation . . . .” But the record clearly shows Rodas’s defense counsel advised him of his right to testify, and he waived that right. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carrollgreen1 sentence2025(Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 482, fn. 2 [declining to consider arguments that are not sufficiently developed]; People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, fn. 5 (Carroll) [court need not consider constitutional argument void of analysis or authority].) 6 his right.4 Yet, he seems uncertain if this contention is accurate because he also states, “Unless I am mistaken and it is in the record at some point I did not catch, this is a fundamental violation . . . .” But the record clearly shows Rodas’s defense counsel advised him of his right to testify, and he waived that right. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eagle CA3green2 sentences2018The People also concede[d] that because the judgment was not final, [Eagle] was entitled to benefit retroactively from the changes to section 11379." ( Id at p. 279, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding. ( Id. at pp. 279-280, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The Rodas court pointed out that, in Eagle , it did not consider Penal Code section 1018 or its "effect ... on a trial court's jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea," and thus Eagle was "of no help in determining the effect of the statute on Rodas's ability to belatedl 2018The People also concede[d] that because the judgment was not final, [Eagle] was entitled to benefit retroactively from the changes to section 11379." ( Id at p. 279, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding. ( Id. at pp. 279-280, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 .) The Rodas court pointed out that, in Eagle , it did not consider Penal Code section 1018 or its "effect ... on a trial court's jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea," and thus Eagle was "of no help in determining the effect of the statute on Rodas's ability to belatedl | 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. Caro
green
1 sentence2024Under these circumstances, hearsay statements about the depth of the wound and whether other factors may have contributed to Falin’s death did not “have high value in the overall evidentiary calculus.” (People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 493 .) Thus, even if the trial court erred in admitting this evidence, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2024–2024 |