Pope standard (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Pope standard in California

21 California opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2011 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.

Followed or applied (19)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Friersongreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1986
2 sentences

1980Moreover, we note that in applying the Pope standard to privately retained counsel in People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142 , the Supreme Court commented that counsel’s “. . . failure to. .. object... [is a matter] which usually involve^] tactical decisions on counsel’s part and seldom establishes] a counsel’s incompetence.” IV Estoppel Edward L.

1980Moreover, we note that in applying the Pope standard to privately retained counsel in People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142 , the Supreme Court commented that counsel’s “. . . failure to. .. object... [is a matter] which usually involve^] tactical decisions on counsel’s part and seldom establishes] a counsel’s incompetence.” IV Estoppel Edward L.

45
People v. Popegreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 12 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1986
2 sentences

1986(People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424 .) Although the fact that counsel is privately retained is an important consideration in measuring the effectiveness of counsel’s representation, Pope's standard of effectiveness of counsel applies to both appointed and retained counsel.

1986In People v. Pope, supra, the Supreme Court held that counsel’s failings compel reversal if they result in the “withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense.” ( 23 Cal.3d at p. 425 .) In People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ], the court recognized that strict application of the Pope standard of harmful error may not encompass claims of ineffectiveness where the failings of counsel otherwise prejudiced the defendant.

212
Stovall v. Dennogreen
scotus · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1980
2 sentences

1979(In re Johnson (1970) 3 Cal.3d 404, 410 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 ].) Decisional rules that vindicate the right of the accused to the assistance of counsel at arraignment, trial and on appeal are given retroactive effect because denial of counsel “ ‘must almost invariably deny a fair trial.’ ” (In re Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 411 , citing Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 297 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1204 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].) Because the purpose of the Pope standard is to vindicate the right of a criminal defendant to the assistance of counsel at trial, we hold that it applies to all

1979(In re Johnson (1970) 3 Cal.3d 404, 410 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 ].) Decisional rules that vindicate the right of the accused to the assistance of counsel at arraignment, trial and on appeal are given retroactive effect because denial of counsel “ ‘must almost invariably deny a fair trial.’ ” (In re Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 411 , citing Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 297 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1204 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].) Because the purpose of the Pope standard is to vindicate the right of a criminal defendant to the assistance of counsel at trial, we hold that it applies to all

22
People v. Nationgreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980If it does, the court must inquire whether the explanation demonstrates that counsel was reasonably competent and acting as a conscientious, diligent advocate. . ..[1Í] Where the record does not illuminate the basis for the challenged acts or omissions, a claim of ineffective assistance is more appropriately made in a petition for habeas corpus.” (Id., at pp. 425-426.) Recently, in People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ], our Supreme Court applied the Pope analysis to a situation involving an allegedly impermissibly suggestive identification procedure.

1980All that is needed is failure to raise a potentially meritorious defense: "[a] crucial defense is not necessarily one which, if presented, `would result inexorably in a defendant's acquittal.'" ( Id., p. 425, fn. 15.) In at least four cases, Pope error has been found for failure to take an appropriate motion, where no showing was made that the court would have granted the motion. ( People v. Cooper (1979) 94 Cal. App.3d 672, 682 [ 156 Cal. Rptr. 646 ] (failure to move for disclosure of informant's identity); People v. Schiering (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 429, 435 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 847 ] (failure to

12
People v. Ledesmagreen
cal · 1987 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989(Ibid.) Fosselman refined the Pope test by providing in those cases where counsel’s actions have not led to the withdrawal of a meritorious defense, “a defendant may prove such ineffectiveness if he establishes that his counsel failed to perform with reasonable competence and that it is reasonably probable a determination more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings. [Citations.]” (People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at p. 584 .) In People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ], the Supreme Court restated the

1989(Ibid.) Fosselman refined the Pope test by providing in those cases where counsel’s actions have not led to the withdrawal of a meritorious defense, “a defendant may prove such ineffectiveness if he establishes that his counsel failed to perform with reasonable competence and that it is reasonably probable a determination more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings. [Citations.]” (People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at p. 584 .) In People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ], the Supreme Court restated the

11
People v. Coronagreen
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986(People v. Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 162; see People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 684, 703 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].) “Of course, the burden of proving a claim of inadequate trial assistance is on the appellant. [Citation.] Thus, appellant must show that trial *969 counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates.

1986(People v. Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 162; see People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 684, 703 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].) “Of course, the burden of proving a claim of inadequate trial assistance is on the appellant. [Citation.] Thus, appellant must show that trial *969 counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates.

11
People v. James H.green
calctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
2 sentences

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

11
People v. Beaglegreen
cal · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11
People v. DeVaughngreen
cal · 1977 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Such a plea “admits all matters essential to the conviction.” (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ].)

1982Such a plea “admits all matters essential to the conviction.” (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ].)

11
People v. Murphygreen
cal · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11
People v. Najeragreen
cal · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11
People v. Lanpheargreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11
People v. Bettsgreen
calctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Rollo, supra, 20 Cal.3d 109, 120-121 ; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Although admitting that no single error or omission meets the Pope standard, Kent asserts the sum total of his counsel’s performance denied him effective assistance within the meaning of People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].

1981(See People v. Rollo, supra, 20 Cal.3d 109, 120-121 ; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Although admitting that no single error or omission meets the Pope standard, Kent asserts the sum total of his counsel’s performance denied him effective assistance within the meaning of People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].

11
People v. Farleygreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
People v. Schieringgreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
Simmons v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
People v. Coopergreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
In Re Johnsongreen
cal · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11
People v. Charlesgreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Fosselman green
cal · 1983
2 sentences

1989(Ibid.) Fosselman refined the Pope test by providing in those cases where counsel’s actions have not led to the withdrawal of a meritorious defense, “a defendant may prove such ineffectiveness if he establishes that his counsel failed to perform with reasonable competence and that it is reasonably probable a determination more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings. [Citations.]” (People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at p. 584 .) In People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ], the Supreme Court restated the

1989(Ibid.) Fosselman refined the Pope test by providing in those cases where counsel’s actions have not led to the withdrawal of a meritorious defense, “a defendant may prove such ineffectiveness if he establishes that his counsel failed to perform with reasonable competence and that it is reasonably probable a determination more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings. [Citations.]” (People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at p. 584 .) In People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ], the Supreme Court restated the

21986–1989
In Re Pope green
cal · 2010
2 sentences

2011(Pope, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Pope court noted that it had begun the analysis in Reeves “by observing that the ‘case tum[ed] on the meaning of the phrase “any person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense . . . .” (§ 2933.1, subdivision (a).)’ [Citation.] The phrase ‘is convicted’ in that context had only two possible meanings: (1) a conviction that was current, in the sense that it still gave the state the right to confine the prisoner in physical custody, or (2) the historical fact of conviction.” (Pope, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Pope court explained that in Reev

2011(Pope, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Pope court noted that it had begun the analysis in Reeves “by observing that the ‘case tum[ed] on the meaning of the phrase “any person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense . . . .” (§ 2933.1, subdivision (a).)’ [Citation.] The phrase ‘is convicted’ in that context had only two possible meanings: (1) a conviction that was current, in the sense that it still gave the state the right to confine the prisoner in physical custody, or (2) the historical fact of conviction.” (Pope, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Pope court explained that in Reev

12011–2011
People v. Bailey green
cal · 1961
2 sentences

1989Pursuing his position that since there was only one building containing all the offices, there was but a single criminal intent, Church points to the rule stated in People v. Bailey, supra, 55 Cal.2d 514 , in his attempt to show prejudice from trial counsel’s performance.

1989Pursuing his position that since there was only one building containing all the offices, there was but a single criminal intent, Church points to the rule stated in People v. Bailey, supra, 55 Cal.2d 514 , in his attempt to show prejudice from trial counsel’s performance.

11989–1989
People v. Jackson green
calctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1986(People v. Jackson (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 862 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 166 ].) The Pope standard was applied without discussion and, finding counsel’s actions met the standard of competence, the court did not reach the question of the appropriate test for reversible error. 10 Proposition 8, adopted by the voters at the June 1982 primary election, included restrictions on “plea bargaining” in cases involving any of 25 listed offenses or categories of offense.

1986(People v. Jackson (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 862 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 166 ].) The Pope standard was applied without discussion and, finding counsel’s actions met the standard of competence, the court did not reach the question of the appropriate test for reversible error. 10 Proposition 8, adopted by the voters at the June 1982 primary election, included restrictions on “plea bargaining” in cases involving any of 25 listed offenses or categories of offense.

11986–1986
Department of Social Services v. Ronald P. red
cal · 1981
2 sentences

1984VIII Appellants next contend they lacked effective assistance of counsel. 8 Appellants, relying on In re Angelia P., supra, 28 Cal.3d 908, 926-927 , contend the Pope standard applies in the instant proceedings.

1984VIII Appellants next contend they lacked effective assistance of counsel. 8 Appellants, relying on In re Angelia P., supra, 28 Cal.3d 908, 926-927 , contend the Pope standard applies in the instant proceedings.

11984–1984
People v. Zimmerman green
calctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

11983–1983
People v. Ellers green
calctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

11983–1983
People v. McClindon green
calctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

11983–1983
People v. Watson green
cal · 1956
2 sentences

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

1983Thus, the Court of Appeal has observed that "recent decisions on the subject indicate that tactical acts or omissions which seriously prejudice a defendant's case may constitute the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious `defense'" within the meaning of Pope . ( People v. Zimmerman (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 647 , 658-659 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to impeachment evidence]; see also In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268 , 273 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [defendant was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to properly move to disqualify the tr

11983–1983
People v. Braeseke green
cal · 1980
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11982–1982
People v. Jackson green
cal · 1980
2 sentences

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

1982(See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) *139 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 424; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 367 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 458 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ].) In addition, appellant must affirmatively show that the omission

11982–1982
Cuyler v. Sullivan green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

1981Under Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 446 U.S. 335 [ 64 L.Ed.2d 333 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 ], however, Pope is not, I believe, controlling.

1981Under Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 446 U.S. 335 [ 64 L.Ed.2d 333 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 ], however, Pope is not, I believe, controlling.

11981–1981
Glasser v. United States green
scotus · 1942
2 sentences

1981In view of our decision to reverse the judgment on grounds of denial of counsel, we find no reason to discuss and resolve issues of Pope error (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ]), Griffin error (Griffin v. California *588 (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]) and Glasser error (Glasser v. United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60 [ 86 L.Ed. 680 , 62 S.Ct. 457 ]).

1981In view of our decision to reverse the judgment on grounds of denial of counsel, we find no reason to discuss and resolve issues of Pope error (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ]), Griffin error (Griffin v. California *588 (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]) and Glasser error (Glasser v. United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60 [ 86 L.Ed. 680 , 62 S.Ct. 457 ]).

11981–1981
Griffin v. California green
scotus · 1965
2 sentences

1981In view of our decision to reverse the judgment on grounds of denial of counsel, we find no reason to discuss and resolve issues of Pope error (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ]), Griffin error (Griffin v. California *588 (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]) and Glasser error (Glasser v. United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60 [ 86 L.Ed. 680 , 62 S.Ct. 457 ]).

1981In view of our decision to reverse the judgment on grounds of denial of counsel, we find no reason to discuss and resolve issues of Pope error (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ]), Griffin error (Griffin v. California *588 (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]) and Glasser error (Glasser v. United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60 [ 86 L.Ed. 680 , 62 S.Ct. 457 ]).

11981–1981
People v. Rollo red
cal · 1977
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Rollo, supra, 20 Cal.3d 109, 120-121 ; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Although admitting that no single error or omission meets the Pope standard, Kent asserts the sum total of his counsel’s performance denied him effective assistance within the meaning of People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].

1981(See People v. Rollo, supra, 20 Cal.3d 109, 120-121 ; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Although admitting that no single error or omission meets the Pope standard, Kent asserts the sum total of his counsel’s performance denied him effective assistance within the meaning of People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].

11981–1981
Holloway v. Arkansas green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

1981The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate’s conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters.” (Id., at pp. 489-490 [ 55 L.Ed.2d at p. 438 ].) The majority asserts that there is no Pope error (see People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ]) because defendant doesn’t set forth what the exculpatory testimony of Noday and Smart would have been.

1981The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate's conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters." ( Id., at pp. 489-490 [ 55 L.Ed.2d at p. 438 ].) The majority asserts that there is no Pope error (see People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ]) because defendant doesn't set forth what the exculpatory testimony of Noday and Smart would have been.

11981–1981
People v. Morrison green
calctapp · 1977
2 sentences

1980(People v. Frier-son (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 162 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ].) 5 The defendant in Morrison was also on trial for violating section 12021. ( 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 427 .) The trial court, over defense objection, permitted the prosecutor to prove five uncontested prior felony convictions, as part of his case in chief, despite the fact that only one of them could be used for impeachment.

1980(People v. Frier-son (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 162 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ].) 5 The defendant in Morrison was also on trial for violating section 12021. ( 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 427 .) The trial court, over defense objection, permitted the prosecutor to prove five uncontested prior felony convictions, as part of his case in chief, despite the fact that only one of them could be used for impeachment.

11980–1980
People v. Gainer green
cal · 1977
11979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 211 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 459 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1979–2011) FL 7 (1990–2018) AZ 6 (1979–2023) GA 5 (1982–2024) AL 4 (1997–2006) PA 3 (2008–2025) OH 2 (2017–2023) VA 2 (1987–2024) WA 2 (2016–2017) SC 2 (2020–2022) MN 2 (2009–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check