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 2016–2020 0 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. Lowerygreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Lowery (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 533 , 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 ( Lowery ), review granted April 19, 2017, S240615.) Decided just before Romanowski , Lowery involved the cashing of a forged check written for over $1,000, above the $950 value limit for misdemeanor forgery in section 473, subdivision (b), which was set by Proposition 47. ( Lowery , at p. 535,.) Similar to Romanowski , the court rejected the parties' all-or-nothing approach to value: it rejected the People's view that the check was valued in the amount written on it; and it rejected the petitioner's view that the check was va 2018(See People v. Lowery (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 533 , 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 ( Lowery ), review granted April 19, 2017, S240615.) Decided just before Romanowski , Lowery involved the cashing of a forged check written for over $1,000, above the $950 value limit for misdemeanor forgery in section 473, subdivision (b), which was set by Proposition 47. ( Lowery , at p. 535,.) Similar to Romanowski , the court rejected the parties' all-or-nothing approach to value: it rejected the People's view that the check was valued in the amount written on it; and it rejected the petitioner's view that the check was va | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2018The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the trial court's order denying relief under section 1170.18 as to counts one and three to seven, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine defendant's eligibility for relief on the affected counts. ( Gonzales , at pp. 1073-1074, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 814 .) *198 On February 15, 2017, we granted review on our own motion to resolve what relationship, if any, must exist between convictions for forgery and identity theft in order to exclude a forgery conviction from sentencing as a misdemeanor under section 473(b). | 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. Gonzales
green
1 sentence2020(Gonzales, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 53 .) We then granted Guerrero’s petition for review and transferred his case to the Court of Appeal with 3 PEOPLE v. GUERRERO Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider Guerrero’s appeal in light of Gonzales. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2017In November 2014, the California electorate passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. ( People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 , 1089, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 .) "Proposition 47 was intended to ensure prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenders, to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crimes, and to invest the savings generated thereby into educational, social, and mental health causes. [Citation.] To this end, Proposition 47 reduced most possessory drug offenses and thefts of property valued at $950 or less to straight misdemeanors." ( People 2017In November 2014, the California electorate passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. ( People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 , 1089, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 .) "Proposition 47 was intended to ensure prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenders, to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crimes, and to invest the savings generated thereby into educational, social, and mental health causes. [Citation.] To this end, Proposition 47 reduced most possessory drug offenses and thefts of property valued at $950 or less to straight misdemeanors." ( People | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences2017In November 2014, the California electorate passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. ( People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 , 1089, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 .) "Proposition 47 was intended to ensure prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenders, to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crimes, and to invest the savings generated thereby into educational, social, and mental health causes. [Citation.] To this end, Proposition 47 reduced most possessory drug offenses and thefts of property valued at $950 or less to straight misdemeanors." ( People 2017In November 2014, the California electorate passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. ( People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 , 1089, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 .) "Proposition 47 was intended to ensure prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenders, to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crimes, and to invest the savings generated thereby into educational, social, and mental health causes. [Citation.] To this end, Proposition 47 reduced most possessory drug offenses and thefts of property valued at $950 or less to straight misdemeanors." ( People | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Sherow CA4/1
green
1 sentence2016(Sherow, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 879 .) We therefore will not presume that appellant’s forgery conviction involved an access card transaction valued at $950 or less. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Green
green
1 sentence2016Appellant cannot show an equal protection violation on the record here. 6 “The right to equal protection of the laws is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Hubbart (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1216 .) The right to equal protection ensures that “persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.” (People v. Green (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 921, 924 .) “In order to establish a meritorious claim under the equal protection provisions of our state and feder | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hubbart
green
1 sentence2016Appellant cannot show an equal protection violation on the record here. 6 “The right to equal protection of the laws is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Hubbart (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1216 .) The right to equal protection ensures that “persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.” (People v. Green (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 921, 924 .) “In order to establish a meritorious claim under the equal protection provisions of our state and feder | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence2016“The very settled rule of appellate review is a trial court’s order/judgment is presumed to be correct, error is never presumed, and the appealing party must 7 affirmatively demonstrate error on the face of the record.” (People v. Davis (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 168, 172 .) Moreover, when a Proposition 47 petitioner seeks misdemeanor designation pursuant to Penal Code section 473, he bears the burden of proving a value of $950 or less. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.