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 1 courts 1991–2026 5 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. Caparrottared2 sentences2026(See People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874 , 905 (Caparrotta).) In Caparrotta, the reviewing court rejected the same argument as that posed here because nothing in the record established that the trial court was unaware of its obligations under section 1170, 38 subdivision (b)(6) or that it failed to apply that provision. 2026In People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874 , 905 (Caparrotta), the court stated, “We reject Caparrotta’s argument because nothing in the record establishes that the trial court was unaware of its obligations under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) or that it failed to apply that provision. ‘In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court “knows and applies the correct statutory and case law.”’ [Citation.] Thus, although the trial court did not specifically mention . . . section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), it is presumed to have known of the provision. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Gollivergreen1 sentence1991(People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254-255 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 709 ]; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2 .) Rule 439(d) of the California Rules of Court provides: “Selection of the middle term does not relieve the court of its obligation under section 1170(c) to state the reasons for imprisonment as its sentence choice.” A different analysis is involved where a prison sentence has been imposed but execution of that sentence has been ordered suspended during a period of probation. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Butlergreen2 sentences1991(People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254-255 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 709 ]; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2 .) Rule 439(d) of the California Rules of Court provides: “Selection of the middle term does not relieve the court of its obligation under section 1170(c) to state the reasons for imprisonment as its sentence choice.” A different analysis is involved where a prison sentence has been imposed but execution of that sentence has been ordered suspended during a period of probation. 1991(People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254-255 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 709 ]; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2 .) Rule 439(d) of the California Rules of Court provides: “Selection of the middle term does not relieve the court of its obligation under section 1170(c) to state the reasons for imprisonment as its sentence choice.” A different analysis is involved where a prison sentence has been imposed but execution of that sentence has been ordered suspended during a period of probation. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cushwaygreen2 sentences1991(People v. Latham, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 27, 29-31 ; People v. Cushway (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 776, 778-779 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) The defendant in Slaughter was statutorily ineligible for probation. 1991(People v. Latham, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 27, 29-31 ; People v. Cushway (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 776, 778-779 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) The defendant in Slaughter was statutorily ineligible for probation. | 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. Thomas
green
2 sentences2026“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court ‘knows and applies the correct statutory and case law.’ ’’ (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 361 .) Thus, although the trial court did not specifically mention section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), it is presumed to have known of the provision, and is also presumed to be aware of the matters proffered in the sentencing memoranda and the probation report. 2024“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court ‘knows and applies the correct statutory and case law.’ ” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 361 .) Thus, although the trial court did not specifically mention Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), it is presumed to have known of the provision. | 2 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2026Davis argues the attorney who represented him at sentencing provided ineffective assistance because the attorney appeared not to have reviewed evidence about Davis’s childhood trauma and mental health issues before the sentencing hearing, did not argue for imposition of a low term sentence, did not inform the court of its obligations under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), and did not remind the court to schedule a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Panozo
green
1 sentence2025(Id. at p. 906, fn. 14.) Lopez analogizes to People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825 and People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984 to argue the record here does not affirmatively show the trial court understood and applied 4 section 1170(b)(6), thus requiring us to conclude the trial court erred. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Fredrickson
green
1 sentence2025(Id. at p. 906, fn. 14.) Lopez analogizes to People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825 and People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984 to argue the record here does not affirmatively show the trial court understood and applied 4 section 1170(b)(6), thus requiring us to conclude the trial court erred. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Latham
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Latham, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 27, 29-31 ; People v. Cushway (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 776, 778-779 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) The defendant in Slaughter was statutorily ineligible for probation. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.