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 3 courts 1981–2021 1 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. Turnergreen2 sentences2000(See People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 167-168 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 , 878 P.2d 521 ].) As for the contention that the prosecutor’s challenge to Prospective Juror S. supported an inference that the prosecutor was motivated by group bias in challenging Prospective Juror Rt., the record belies the claim. 2000(See People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 167-168 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 , 878 P.2d 521 ].) As for the contention that the prosecutor’s challenge to Prospective Juror S. supported an inference that the prosecutor was motivated by group bias in challenging Prospective Juror Rt., the record belies the claim. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Dickeygreen2 sentences2014Nonetheless, as a matter of both federal and state constitutional law, a capital defendant may validly waive his presence at critical stages of the trial. [Citations.] Defendant’s waiver was valid; accordingly, his constitutional rights were not violated.” (People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 923 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 111 P.3d 921 ].) Defendant suggests in passing that his waiver of presence resulted from “pique, frustration and anger at the jury’s guilty verdict.” The record belies this claim. 2014Nonetheless, as a matter of both federal and state constitutional law, a capital defendant may validly waive his presence at critical stages of the trial. [Citations.] Defendant’s waiver was valid; accordingly, his constitutional rights were not violated.” (People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 923 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 111 P.3d 921 ].) Defendant suggests in passing that his waiver of presence resulted from “pique, frustration and anger at the jury’s guilty verdict.” The record belies this claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2013“The examination of such a small number of prospective jurors constitutes an extremely limited sample of the trial court’s overall performance, thereby diminishing the probative value of the examples proffered by defendant to support the inference he would have us draw.” (People v. Martinez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 399, 447 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 732 , 213 P.3d 77 ] (Martinez)', see Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 39, fn. 15 [trial court’s treatment of single prospective juror “cannot establish a pattern of discriminatory questioning in violation of defendant’s rights”].) In addition, as to two of the four 2013“The examination of such a small number of prospective jurors constitutes an extremely limited sample of the trial 23 court’s overall performance, thereby diminishing the probative value of the examples proffered by defendant to support the inference he would have us draw.” (People v. Martinez (2007) 47 Cal.4th 399, 447 (Martinez); see also Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 39, fn. 15 [trial court’s treatment of single prospective juror “cannot establish a pattern of discriminatory questioning in violation of defendant’s rights”].) In addition, as to two of the four anti-death penalty prospectiv | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whalengreen2 sentences2013“The examination of such a small number of prospective jurors constitutes an extremely limited sample of the trial 23 court’s overall performance, thereby diminishing the probative value of the examples proffered by defendant to support the inference he would have us draw.” (People v. Martinez (2007) 47 Cal.4th 399, 447 (Martinez); see also Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 39, fn. 15 [trial court’s treatment of single prospective juror “cannot establish a pattern of discriminatory questioning in violation of defendant’s rights”].) In addition, as to two of the four anti-death penalty prospectiv 2013“The examination of such a small number of prospective jurors constitutes an extremely limited sample of the trial 23 court’s overall performance, thereby diminishing the probative value of the examples proffered by defendant to support the inference he would have us draw.” (People v. Martinez (2007) 47 Cal.4th 399, 447 (Martinez); see also Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 39, fn. 15 [trial court’s treatment of single prospective juror “cannot establish a pattern of discriminatory questioning in violation of defendant’s rights”].) In addition, as to two of the four anti-death penalty prospectiv | 1 | 1 |
Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc.green2 sentences2010In any event, and as we have repeatedly noted, “ ‘ “Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an ‘abuse’ of discretion.” ’ ” (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 284 ]; see Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2001) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 25 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ].) Acting contrary to specific statutory command, or applying an incorrect legal standard, is accepted as proof of discretion abused. 2010In any event, and as we have repeatedly noted, “ ‘ “Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an ‘abuse’ of discretion.” ’ ” (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 284 ]; see Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2001) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 25 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ].) Acting contrary to specific statutory command, or applying an incorrect legal standard, is accepted as proof of discretion abused. | 1 | 1 |
Thayer v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAgreen2 sentences2010In any event, and as we have repeatedly noted, “ ‘ “Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an ‘abuse’ of discretion.” ’ ” (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 284 ]; see Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2001) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 25 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ].) Acting contrary to specific statutory command, or applying an incorrect legal standard, is accepted as proof of discretion abused. 2010In any event, and as we have repeatedly noted, “ ‘ “Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an ‘abuse’ of discretion.” ’ ” (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 284 ]; see Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2001) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 25 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ].) Acting contrary to specific statutory command, or applying an incorrect legal standard, is accepted as proof of discretion abused. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2007(People v. Barnett *489 (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1091 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 753 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The record belies this claim. 2007(People v. Barnett *489 (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1091 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 753 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The record belies this claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barnettgreen1 sentence2007(People v. Barnett *489 (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1091 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 753 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The record belies this claim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Culbrethgreen2 sentences1992There was but one occasion, one intent, one objective, one indivisible transaction." ( In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330, 335 [ 130 Cal. Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ].) The record belies this claim. 1992There was but one occasion, one intent, one objective, one indivisible transaction." ( In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330, 335 [ 130 Cal. Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ].) The record belies this claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boltongreen2 sentences1992While in his closing argument the prosecutor occasionally used such phrases as “I know,” the record belies the claim that he held himself out as an unsworn witness (see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 ]). 1992While in his closing argument the prosecutor occasionally used such phrases as “I know,” the record belies the claim that he held himself out as an unsworn witness (see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences1981While *306 a trial court is not required to indicate its reasons for rejecting a mitigating factor (People v. Davis (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270, 281 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 22 ]), the sentencing court here indicated that though some mitigating circumstances may have been demonstrated, they were clearly outweighed by the fact that defendant was on parole when he committed the present offense. . 1981While *306 a trial court is not required to indicate its reasons for rejecting a mitigating factor (People v. Davis (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270, 281 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 22 ]), the sentencing court here indicated that though some mitigating circumstances may have been demonstrated, they were clearly outweighed by the fact that defendant was on parole when he committed the present offense. . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saks v. Charity Mission Baptist Church
green
2 sentences2019"When a trial court's factual determination is attacked on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination." ( Saks v. Charity Mission Baptist Church (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1116 , 1132, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 .) "If such substantial evidence be found, it is of no consequence that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached 2019"When a trial court's factual determination is attacked on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination." ( Saks v. Charity Mission Baptist Church (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1116 , 1132, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 .) "If such substantial evidence be found, it is of no consequence that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2021To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that “ ‘(1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant.’ ” (People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 980 .) We presume that counsel’s actions fall within the broad range of reasonableness and defer to counsel’s tactical decisions. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2015Whether the confession was voluntary depends upon the totality of the circumstances. [Citations.] "'On appeal, the trial court's findings as to the circumstances surrounding the confession are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, but the trial court's finding as to the voluntariness of the confession is subject to independent review.'" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 436 .) Respondent argues that that appellant waived this claim by failing to raise it below, and that any error associated with the admission of appellant's confession was harmless. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Beeman
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561 .) Appellant claims "the record is devoid of any evidence that [he] assisted, aided, encouraged, . . . or helped Navarette enter the garage for the purpose of theft." The record belies his claim. 2 Appellant drove Navarette to the Nemiroffs' neighborhood. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Norviel v. Norviel
green
1 sentence2014Cora and Keith shared 3 Cora argues that a de novo standard should apply to our review, and cites In re Marriage of Norviel (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1157 , which concerned the issue of the date of separation. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Yearwood
green
1 sentence2014In hearing the petition for resentencing, the trial court was required to and did consider appellant's "criminal history, disciplinary record while incarcerated and . . . other relevant evidence," to determine whether he posed "'an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.' (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).)" (Yearwood, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 176 .) The "other evidence" included appellant's prison education records (including college transcripts); a letter from appellant describing his goals and explaining he had obtained his associate of arts degree; and his favorable prison work records. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Senior
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 536 .) Second, the record belies the claim. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Barnett
green
2 sentences2007(People v. Barnett *489 (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1091 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 753 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The record belies this claim. 2007(People v. Barnett *489 (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1091 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 753 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The record belies this claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.