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.
28 California opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 7 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. Hestergreen2 sentences2020The Advisory Committee comment to rule 4.412(b) states: “This subdivision is based on the fact that a defendant who, with the advice of counsel, expresses agreement to a specified prison term normally is acknowledging that the term is appropriate for his or her total course of conduct.” The court in Hester points out that rule 4.412(b) and its predecessor, former rule 412(b), are codifications of “the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed,” and acceptance of a plea bargain is an implicit waiver of section 654 rights. ( Hester, supra, at p 2020The Advisory Committee comment to rule 4.412(b) states: “This subdivision is based on the fact that a defendant who, with the advice of counsel, expresses agreement to a specified prison term normally is acknowledging that the term is appropriate for his or her total course of conduct.” The court in Hester points out that rule 4.412(b) and its predecessor, former rule 412(b), are codifications of “the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed,” and acceptance of a plea bargain is an implicit waiver of section 654 rights. ( Hester, supra, at p | 2 | 3 |
People v. Couchgreen2 sentences2020The Advisory Committee comment to rule 4.412(b) states: “This subdivision is based on the fact that a defendant who, with the advice of counsel, expresses agreement to a specified prison term normally is acknowledging that the term is appropriate for his or her total course of conduct.” The court in Hester points out that rule 4.412(b) and its predecessor, former rule 412(b), are codifications of “the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed,” and acceptance of a plea bargain is an implicit waiver of section 654 rights. ( Hester, supra, at p 2010The Advisory Committee comment to rule 4.412(b) states: "This subdivision is based on the fact that a defendant who, with the advice of counsel, expresses agreement to a specified prison term normally is acknowledging that the term is appropriate for his or her total course of conduct." Rule 4.412(b) and its predecessor, former rule 412(b), are codifications of "the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed." ( People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ] ( Hester ).) Hester states that acceptance of a ple | 2 | 3 |
People v. Connorgreen2 sentences2025(See People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 676 [describing process for gaining access to probation reports].) We order the probation report unsealed and direct that it be designated as a confidential record. 7 On May 7, 1991, Rogowski confessed he had raped and killed Bergsten nearly two months earlier, in late March. 2025(See People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 676 [describing process for gaining access to probation reports].) We order the probation report unsealed and direct that it be designated as a confidential record. 7 On May 7, 1991, Rogowski confessed he had raped and killed Bergsten nearly two months earlier, in late March. | 2 | 2 |
Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Educationgreen2 sentences2015(Compare Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 710 [appealable] with Tate v. Wilburn 4 The Advisory Committee Comment to rule 8.108(e) provides, "Subdivision (e) applies only when a 'party' makes a valid motion to 'reconsider' an appealable order under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008; it therefore does not apply when a court reconsiders an order on its own motion . . . or when a party makes 'a subsequent application for the same order'. . . . 2007The Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.108(d) of the California Rules of Court states that the revised rule takes no position on “whether an order denying a motion to reconsider is itself appealable (compare Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 710-711 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 605 ] [order appealable if motion based on new facts] with Rojes v. Riverside General Hospital (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d [1151,] 1160-1161 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 435 ] [order not appealable under any circumstances]).” The Advisory Committee comment states that whether such an order is separately appe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s 2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s | 1 | 3 |
People v. MacKgreen2 sentences2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that 2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that | 1 | 2 |
People v. Jeffersgreen1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 49 [because a defendant’s written waiver of the right to be present must be obtained in open court, court would presume the trial court did so]; People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 550 [court presumes that the trial court “regularly performed the lawful duty of informing defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the consequences of his decision, before accepting his express waiver of his right to counsel”]; cf. People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 1000 [presumption does not apply to uncertain questio | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Jovelgreen1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 49 [because a defendant’s written waiver of the right to be present must be obtained in open court, court would presume the trial court did so]; People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 550 [court presumes that the trial court “regularly performed the lawful duty of informing defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the consequences of his decision, before accepting his express waiver of his right to counsel”]; cf. People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 1000 [presumption does not apply to uncertain questio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sullivangreen1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 49 [because a defendant’s written waiver of the right to be present must be obtained in open court, court would presume the trial court did so]; People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 550 [court presumes that the trial court “regularly performed the lawful duty of informing defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the consequences of his decision, before accepting his express waiver of his right to counsel”]; cf. People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 1000 [presumption does not apply to uncertain questio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Visciottigreen1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 49 [because a defendant’s written waiver of the right to be present must be obtained in open court, court would presume the trial court did so]; People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 550 [court presumes that the trial court “regularly performed the lawful duty of informing defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the consequences of his decision, before accepting his express waiver of his right to counsel”]; cf. People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 1000 [presumption does not apply to uncertain questio | 1 | 1 |
Tate v. Wilburngreen1 sentence2015(See also Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2014) 3:93:5, p. 3-43.) 5 (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 160 [nonappealable].) Subdivision (g) does not expressly address motions made under subdivision (b). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2014(People v. Johnson (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1432 [decided under former rule 411(c)].) Where, as here (see fn. 4, ante), a defendant is ineligible for probation, obtaining a supplemental report remains discretionary with the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dobbinsgreen1 sentence2014(People v. Dobbins (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 176, 181 [observing that the Advisory Committee Comment to rule 4.411 “suggests that a period of more than six months may constitute a significant period of time”].) Although rule 4.411(c) is couched in mandatory terms, that rule has been interpreted as requiring a supplemental probation report only where the defendant is eligible for probation. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that 2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that | 1 | 1 |
| In Re John B.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chi Ko Wonggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Superior Court (Steven S.)green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lutesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morris v. Dale S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kirkpatrick v. Edgar M.green | 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. Clark
green
2 sentences2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s 2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s | 3 | 2014–2025 |
People v. Douglas
green
2 sentences2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s 2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s | 3 | 2014–2025 |
People v. Spreckels
green
2 sentences2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s 2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s | 3 | 2014–2025 |
Branner v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences2020Though rule 8.108 does not define the term “valid,” courts have interpreted it in accordance with the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.108, which provides that “ ‘ “valid” means only that the motion or notice complies with all procedural requirements; it does not mean that the motion or notice must also be substantively meritorious.’ ” (Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1046 , quoting Advisory Com. com., 23 pt. 2 West’s Ann. 2020Though rule 8.108 does not define the term “valid,” courts have interpreted it in accordance with the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.108, which provides that “ ‘ “valid” means only that the motion or notice complies with all procedural requirements; it does not mean that the motion or notice must also be substantively meritorious.’ ” (Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1046 , quoting Advisory Com. com., 23 pt. 2 West’s Ann. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Douglas v. Janis
green
1 sentence2026(Glasser v. Glasser (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 ; Douglas v. Janis (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 931, 936-937 .) As is explained in the Advisory Committee Comment to rule 8.104(a)(1)(B), the purpose of requiring a proof of service is to clearly identify the date of service, which is the date that triggers the running of the 60-day appeal period. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Nevill
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Pearson (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 112, 117 ; People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 .) The Advisory Committee Comment to rule 4.409 states that the rule “applies the presumption of Evidence Code section 664 that [an] official duty has been regularly performed.” As applied to judicial officers, Evidence Code section 664 operates as a presumption about what the court did, not how it adjudicated a non-obvious legal question before it. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Glasser v. Glasser
green
1 sentence2026(Glasser v. Glasser (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 ; Douglas v. Janis (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 931, 936-937 .) As is explained in the Advisory Committee Comment to rule 8.104(a)(1)(B), the purpose of requiring a proof of service is to clearly identify the date of service, which is the date that triggers the running of the 60-day appeal period. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Pearson
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., People v. Pearson (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 112, 117 ; People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 .) The Advisory Committee Comment to rule 4.409 states that the rule “applies the presumption of Evidence Code section 664 that [an] official duty has been regularly performed.” As applied to judicial officers, Evidence Code section 664 operates as a presumption about what the court did, not how it adjudicated a non-obvious legal question before it. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Armstrong v. United States
green
1 sentence2025Codes, Rules, supra, foll. rule 8.304, p. 7). 18. relied upon People v. Mack (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 574 , 578–579, which quoted Armstrong v. United States (9th Cir. 1926) 16 F.2d 62 , 64 for the proposition that an original information is abandoned and set aside after the filing of an amended information. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Angela M.
green
1 sentence2025(In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396 .) “ ‘ “[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” ’ ” (In re Oscar A. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 750, 755 .) “ ‘A [juvenile] court [also] abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288 .) 2. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences2025(Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 528 .) After reviewing section 691, rule 8.304, the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, and the cases cited in the comment, Scott concluded that the appellate division of the superior court had appellate jurisdiction and transferred the case to that court. 2025(Scott, at pp. 528–532, 534.) In reaching this conclusion, Scott examined each of the cases cited in the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304. ( Scott, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530–532; see Brown, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 [superior court’s jurisdiction was established when the misdemeanor was joined in an information with the felony and continued until disposition of the case]; Spreckels, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at pp. 512–513 [where jury fails to convict on felony, superior court still has jurisdiction over conviction of lesser included offense].) Although not a case addressing s | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Oscar A.
green
1 sentence2025(In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396 .) “ ‘ “[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” ’ ” (In re Oscar A. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 750, 755 .) “ ‘A [juvenile] court [also] abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288 .) 2. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Khalid B. v. Khalid B.
green
1 sentence2025(In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396 .) “ ‘ “[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” ’ ” (In re Oscar A. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 750, 755 .) “ ‘A [juvenile] court [also] abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288 .) 2. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lamb v. Holy Cross Hospital
green
1 sentence2022A “valid” motion to vacate, for purposes of extending the time for filing a notice of appeal, means “a motion based on some recognized grounds for vacation; it cannot be stretched to include any motion, regardless of the basis for it.” (Lamb v. Holy Cross Hospital (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1010 .) The Advisory Committee Comment to rule 8.108 states: “Subdivision (c). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2016Conditions of Probation In objecting to the conditions of his probation, Esteban asks the court to resolve “material inconsistencies between the three versions of the probation conditions in the record.” One version is the juvenile court’s pronouncement at the dispositional hearing; the second is the minute order signed by the juvenile court judge; the third is a document prepared by the Alameda County Juvenile Probation Department, entitled “Conditions of Probation and Court Orders.” The Attorney General contends that the court’s oral pronouncements control over the clerk’s transcript, citing | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Meyer v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that 2013Based on Brown, Spreckels, Douglas and Clark , and a close reading of the Advisory Committee comment to rule 8.304, we are convinced that the “regardless of the outcome” language in rule 8.304 does not extend to cases wherein the felony count is dismissed entirely, because in this situation there is no “prosecution.” Scott has complained at length that the misdemeanor complaint “was a formality, filed on the first day of trial, that did not change the essential nature of the case.” “As stated in Wright v. Rogers [(1959)] 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 361 [ 342 P.2d 447 ]: 1 “It is well established that | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Roberts green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Rojes v. Riverside General Hospital green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Enright green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Edwards green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| People v. Perry green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Davis v. Michael M. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.