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.
17 California opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Dixongreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, an unjustified failure to present an issue on appeal will 11 generally preclude its consideration in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.] ‘[H]abeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal, and, in the absence of special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ that remedy, the writ will not lie where the claimed errors could have been, but were not, raised upon a timely appeal from a judgment.’ ” (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 829 ; see In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 .) “By insisting on presentation of claims on ap 2021Accordingly, an unjustified failure to present an issue on appeal will 11 generally preclude its consideration in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.] ‘[H]abeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal, and, in the absence of special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ that remedy, the writ will not lie where the claimed errors could have been, but were not, raised upon a timely appeal from a judgment.’ ” (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 829 ; see In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 .) “By insisting on presentation of claims on ap | 2 | 7 |
In Re Harrisred2 sentences2018(See *449 In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 490-491, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297 , 283 P.3d 1181 [ Dixon rule subject to four exceptions]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813 , 825, fn. 3, 829, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 .) In Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 142 P.2d 423 , the appellant, in her individual capacity, filed a notice of appeal from an order approving the "First Account and Report" in the administration of an estate, but she filed it "one day beyond the applicable statutory period" for filing a notice of appeal. ( Id . at p. 120, 142 P.2d 423 .) The notice of entry of the ord 2018(See *449 In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 490-491, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297 , 283 P.3d 1181 [ Dixon rule subject to four exceptions]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813 , 825, fn. 3, 829, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 .) In Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 142 P.2d 423 , the appellant, in her individual capacity, filed a notice of appeal from an order approving the "First Account and Report" in the administration of an estate, but she filed it "one day beyond the applicable statutory period" for filing a notice of appeal. ( Id . at p. 120, 142 P.2d 423 .) The notice of entry of the ord | 2 | 5 |
In re Renoyellow2 sentences2026As we have explained, the Dixon bar, “[b]y insisting on presentation of claims on appeal if reasonably possible, . . . 35 PEOPLE v. LOPEZ Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. speeds resolution of claims, avoids delay, and encourages the finality of judgments.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 490 .) There is no affirmative evidence the Legislature intended to incorporate a procedural bar addressing these concerns in enacting section 1172.6. 2018(See *449 In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 490-491, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297 , 283 P.3d 1181 [ Dixon rule subject to four exceptions]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813 , 825, fn. 3, 829, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 .) In Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 142 P.2d 423 , the appellant, in her individual capacity, filed a notice of appeal from an order approving the "First Account and Report" in the administration of an estate, but she filed it "one day beyond the applicable statutory period" for filing a notice of appeal. ( Id . at p. 120, 142 P.2d 423 .) The notice of entry of the ord | 2 | 4 |
In Re Clarkyellow2 sentences2021Accordingly, an unjustified failure to present an issue on appeal will 11 generally preclude its consideration in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.] ‘[H]abeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal, and, in the absence of special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ that remedy, the writ will not lie where the claimed errors could have been, but were not, raised upon a timely appeal from a judgment.’ ” (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 829 ; see In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 .) “By insisting on presentation of claims on ap 2021Accordingly, an unjustified failure to present an issue on appeal will 11 generally preclude its consideration in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.] ‘[H]abeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal, and, in the absence of special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ that remedy, the writ will not lie where the claimed errors could have been, but were not, raised upon a timely appeal from a judgment.’ ” (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 829 ; see In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 .) “By insisting on presentation of claims on ap | 2 | 4 |
In Re Robbinsred2 sentences2012Even had petitioner submitted new supporting evidence, such evidence would not bring the case outside the Dixon rule unless it was both unavailable at the time of trial and significant in scope. ―When a petitioner attempts to avoid the bars of Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d 756 , or Waltreus, supra, 62 Cal.2d 218 , by relying upon an exhibit (in the form of a declaration or other information) from outside the appellate record, we nevertheless apply the bar if the exhibit contains nothing of substance not already 72 in the appellate record.‖ (In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34.)29 In a 2012“When a petitioner attempts to avoid the bars of Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d 756 , or Waltreus, supra, 62 Cal.2d 218 , by relying upon an exhibit (in the form of a declaration or other information) from outside the appellate record, we nevertheless apply the bar if the exhibit contains nothing of substance not already in the *494 appellate record.” (In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34.) 29 In any event, any new evidence—that is, evidence that was not presented to the trial court—would not undermine the trial court’s ruling, and would instead be relevant, if at all, to a claim of ine | 2 | 2 |
Serrano v. Priestgreen1 sentence2015(See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [no reversal absent evidence of a manifest abuse of discretion].) Finally, we consider Safeway’s cost items related to exhibits, including costs incurred for renting equipment to display evidence and to show video clips of deposition testimony; preparing and copying binder sets of both parties’ trial exhibits for use by the court, witnesses and parties; and preparing and copying demonstrative exhibits intended for, among other things, cross-examining witnesses and closing arguments. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sixtogreen2 sentences1993Because "the return effectively admits the material factual allegations of the petition and traverse by not disputing them, we may resolve the issue without ordering an evidentiary hearing." ( In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1252 [ 259 Cal. Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ].) [3] Much of the following discussion also applies to the so-called "Dixon rule," which generally prohibits raising an issue in a postappeal habeas corpus petition when that issue was not, but could have been, raised on appeal. ( In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 [ 264 P.2d 513 ] [hereafter Dixon ].) [4] There were 1,022 petiti 1993Because "the return effectively admits the material factual allegations of the petition and traverse by not disputing them, we may resolve the issue without ordering an evidentiary hearing." ( In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1252 [ 259 Cal. Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ].) [3] Much of the following discussion also applies to the so-called "Dixon rule," which generally prohibits raising an issue in a postappeal habeas corpus petition when that issue was not, but could have been, raised on appeal. ( In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 [ 264 P.2d 513 ] [hereafter Dixon ].) [4] There were 1,022 petiti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Waltreus
green
2 sentences2012Even had petitioner submitted new supporting evidence, such evidence would not bring the case outside the Dixon rule unless it was both unavailable at the time of trial and significant in scope. ―When a petitioner attempts to avoid the bars of Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d 756 , or Waltreus, supra, 62 Cal.2d 218 , by relying upon an exhibit (in the form of a declaration or other information) from outside the appellate record, we nevertheless apply the bar if the exhibit contains nothing of substance not already 72 in the appellate record.‖ (In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34.)29 In a 2012Even had petitioner submitted new supporting evidence, such evidence would not bring the case outside the Dixon rule unless it was both unavailable at the time of trial and significant in scope. ―When a petitioner attempts to avoid the bars of Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d 756 , or Waltreus, supra, 62 Cal.2d 218 , by relying upon an exhibit (in the form of a declaration or other information) from outside the appellate record, we nevertheless apply the bar if the exhibit contains nothing of substance not already 72 in the appellate record.‖ (In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34.)29 In a | 3 | 1998–2012 |
Estate of Hanley v. Hanley
green
2 sentences2018(See *449 In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 490-491, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297 , 283 P.3d 1181 [ Dixon rule subject to four exceptions]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813 , 825, fn. 3, 829, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 .) In Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 142 P.2d 423 , the appellant, in her individual capacity, filed a notice of appeal from an order approving the "First Account and Report" in the administration of an estate, but she filed it "one day beyond the applicable statutory period" for filing a notice of appeal. ( Id . at p. 120, 142 P.2d 423 .) The notice of entry of the ord 2018(See *449 In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 490-491, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297 , 283 P.3d 1181 [ Dixon rule subject to four exceptions]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813 , 825, fn. 3, 829, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 .) In Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 142 P.2d 423 , the appellant, in her individual capacity, filed a notice of appeal from an order approving the "First Account and Report" in the administration of an estate, but she filed it "one day beyond the applicable statutory period" for filing a notice of appeal. ( Id . at p. 120, 142 P.2d 423 .) The notice of entry of the ord | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2012Such issues may be raised on habeas corpus in only two limited circumstances: (1) by coming within an exception to the Dixon rule (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 825, fn. 3, 829-841) or (2) derivatively through a claim of IAAC, which requires a showing of appellate counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice (id. at p. 833 [applying Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668 , “to measure the performance of appellate counsel”]; Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at pp. 285-286 [same]). 2012Such issues may be raised on habeas corpus in only two limited circumstances: (1) by coming within an exception to the Dixon rule (In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 825, fn. 3, 829-841) or (2) derivatively through a claim of IAAC, which requires a showing of appellate counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice (id. at p. 833 [applying Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668 , “to measure the performance of appellate counsel”]; Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at pp. 285-286 [same]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Mendoza Tello
green
2 sentences2012(See In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34; People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 267 .) 29 Claim No. 22 is a good example of an unsuccessful attempt to bolster a barred claim with allegedly “new” evidence. 2012(See In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 34; People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 267 .) 29 Claim No. 22 is a good example of an unsuccessful attempt to bolster a barred claim with allegedly “new” evidence. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Memro
red
2 sentences2012(See Bullington v. Missouri, supra, 451 U.S. 430 .) But in addition to having failed to raise this issue on appeal in Memro II, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786 , thereby implicating the Dixon rule (In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 ), petitioner does not show why the jury would have returned a fife sentence in his first trial had he been represented by counsel at the penalty phase. 2012(See Bullington v. Missouri, supra, 451 U.S. 430 .) But in addition to having failed to raise this issue on appeal in Memro II, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786 , thereby implicating the Dixon rule (In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 ), petitioner does not show why the jury would have returned a fife sentence in his first trial had he been represented by counsel at the penalty phase. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Bullington v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2012(See Bullington v. Missouri, supra, 451 U.S. 430 .) But in addition to having failed to raise this issue on appeal in Memro II, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786 , thereby implicating the Dixon rule (In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 ), petitioner does not show why the jury would have returned a fife sentence in his first trial had he been represented by counsel at the penalty phase. 2012(See Bullington v. Missouri, supra, 451 U.S. 430 .) But in addition to having failed to raise this issue on appeal in Memro II, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786 , thereby implicating the Dixon rule (In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 ), petitioner does not show why the jury would have returned a fife sentence in his first trial had he been represented by counsel at the penalty phase. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2026To serve the statute’s overall purpose, courts must “ensure that murder culpability is commensurate with a person’s actions, while also ensuring that clearly meritless petitions can be efficiently addressed as part of a single-step prima facie review process.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 , italics added.) Incorporating a Dixon bar, untethered from the merits of petitioner’s theory of imputed malice, would not effectively serve these purposes. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Trinity v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
green
1 sentence2025Co. of North America (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1111 , 1124, fn. 4.) Given the nature of Dixon’s claim of error, and the absence of a reporter’s transcript, our statement of the facts supporting the court’s order is taken from its statement of decision. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2025(See, e.g., Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , 186–187.) In the circumstances, we will not exercise our discretion to address Dixon’s claim of error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Avalos
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Avales (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1582 .) In this instance, however, we decline to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015(See, e.g., Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 567, 571 .) According to Safeway, Dixon’s brief identifies only those facts favorable to its case in violation of well-established rules of appellate procedure. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood
green
1 sentence2015(Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 10 .) Dixon’s challenge with respect to the evidence of Safeway’s legitimate purpose in setting fuel prices thus fails.10 9 In finding that Safeway did not act with the purpose of inflicting injury, the trial court credited the testimony of several Safeway officers or employees, including S. Patel, G. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Steele
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1243 .) Although he sought to limit the admissibility of the other crimes evidence by stipulating to certain issues, the People were not required to accept the proffered stipulations (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 471 ), but rather were entitled to prove their case ( Steele, supra, at p. 1243 ). 2013(People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1243 .) Although he sought to limit the admissibility of the other crimes evidence by stipulating to certain issues, the People were not required to accept the proffered stipulations (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 471 ), but rather were entitled to prove their case ( Steele, supra, at p. 1243 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1243 .) Although he sought to limit the admissibility of the other crimes evidence by stipulating to certain issues, the People were not required to accept the proffered stipulations (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 471 ), but rather were entitled to prove their case ( Steele, supra, at p. 1243 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Duvall
green
2 sentences2012(People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474 .) Second, petitioner alleges the Dixon rule is inapplicable because claim No. 35 is based on ―significant evidentiary materials not found within the record on appeal.‖ Specifically, he argues this claim, as alleged in the petition, ―refers to numerous matters outside the record, including problems between petitioner and Anthony Cornejo, as well as the procedures for transporting prisoners employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Office.‖ The argument is specious. 2012(People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474 .) Second, petitioner alleges the Dixon rule is inapplicable because claim No. 35 is based on ―significant evidentiary materials not found within the record on appeal.‖ Specifically, he argues this claim, as alleged in the petition, ―refers to numerous matters outside the record, including problems between petitioner and Anthony Cornejo, as well as the procedures for transporting prisoners employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Office.‖ The argument is specious. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Merriam
yellow
2 sentences1970Code, § 310.) [7] Defendant Dixon's challenge to the sufficiency of the arrest warrant cannot be considered because neither the warrant nor the underlying criminal complaint is before us. ( People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 396-397 .) 1970(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 396-397 .) 1 | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.