16 California opinions name it 3 courts 1896–2026 5 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. Sperlinggreen2 sentences2026As a general rule, “all ‘claims involving the trial court's failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; see also People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1101 [the defendant waived claim court failed to consider several mitigating factors by failing to object at sentencing hearing].) Even if not forfeited, we disagree Sardi is entitled to relief. 2026As a general rule, “all ‘claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; see People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094 , 1100–1101 [the defendant waived claim that the court failed to consider several mitigating factors by failing to object at the sentencing hearing].) Thus, arguments that sentencing choices were based on factors that are “inapplicable, duplicative, and improperly weighed” are forfeited by failing to o | 3 | 3 |
People v. Acostagreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354 [to preserve a sentencing issue for appellate review, it must be raised in the trial court]; see also People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [defendant forfeited claim that trial court erred in failing to consider ability to pay restitution fine by failing to object at sentencing]; People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden b 2022(McMahan, at p. 749; see also People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden both to raise inability to pay fines and fees, and to “present evidence of his or her inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) Thus, by failing to either object to the imposition of the restitution and habitual sex offender fines or | 2 | 2 |
Heiner v. Kmart Corp.green2 sentences2018In Heiner , after ruling the defendant waived its claim for apportionment of damages, the court nonetheless commented that, "[i]n any event, it is reasonably clear that apportionment of fault for injuries inflicted in the course of an intentional tort-such as the battery in this case-would have been improper." ( Heiner, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 348-349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 .) However, the verdict form in Heiner did not distinguish between economic and noneconomic damages, and the court did not consider the applicability of section 1431.2. ( Heiner, at p. 343, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 .) Moreove 2018In Heiner , after ruling the defendant waived its claim for apportionment of damages, the court nonetheless commented that, "[i]n any event, it is reasonably clear that apportionment of fault for injuries inflicted in the course of an intentional tort-such as the battery in this case-would have been improper." ( Heiner, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 348-349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 .) However, the verdict form in Heiner did not distinguish between economic and noneconomic damages, and the court did not consider the applicability of section 1431.2. ( Heiner, at p. 343, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 .) Moreove | 1 | 4 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences2026(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 355 .) Because Defendant failed to raise the mitigating factor relating to his alleged childhood sexual abuse in the trial court level, he forfeited any argument pertaining to that factor. 2022(See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354 [to preserve a sentencing issue for appellate review, it must be raised in the trial court]; see also People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [defendant forfeited claim that trial court erred in failing to consider ability to pay restitution fine by failing to object at sentencing]; People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden b | 1 | 2 |
People v. Castellanogreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354 [to preserve a sentencing issue for appellate review, it must be raised in the trial court]; see also People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [defendant forfeited claim that trial court erred in failing to consider ability to pay restitution fine by failing to object at sentencing]; People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden b 2022(McMahan, at p. 749; see also People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden both to raise inability to pay fines and fees, and to “present evidence of his or her inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) Thus, by failing to either object to the imposition of the restitution and habitual sex offender fines or | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354 [to preserve a sentencing issue for appellate review, it must be raised in the trial court]; see also People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [defendant forfeited claim that trial court erred in failing to consider ability to pay restitution fine by failing to object at sentencing]; People v. Acosta (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 701, 705 [by failing to object to § 290.3 sex offender fines at sentencing or to assert he lacked the ability to pay them, the defendant waived claim that trial court improperly imposed them].) A defendant has the burden b | 1 | 1 |
People v. Trujillogreen1 sentence2022(See McMahan, at p. 749; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858 [the defendant forfeited challenge to fees under § 1203.1b by failing to object below and not asserting an inability to pay]; People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 864 [the defendant forfeited appellate challenge regarding probation-related costs & fees paid to appointed counsel under §§ 1203.1b, 987.8].) Although defendant did not have a statutory right to object to the court operations and criminal conviction assessments, the parties and the trial court had ample notice of the Dueñas decision, which was decided more th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aguilargreen1 sentence2022(See McMahan, at p. 749; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858 [the defendant forfeited challenge to fees under § 1203.1b by failing to object below and not asserting an inability to pay]; People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 864 [the defendant forfeited appellate challenge regarding probation-related costs & fees paid to appointed counsel under §§ 1203.1b, 987.8].) Although defendant did not have a statutory right to object to the court operations and criminal conviction assessments, the parties and the trial court had ample notice of the Dueñas decision, which was decided more th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ayalagreen1 sentence2014It is well established that the denial of a motion to exclude impeachment evidence is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant subsequently declines to testify. [Citations.]” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 731 (Ledesma), citing Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 (Luce) [denial of in limine motion to preclude impeachment of the defendant with a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant did not testify] and People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [prospectively applying Luce]; see also People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 274 (Ayala) [the defendant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ledesmagreen1 sentence2014It is well established that the denial of a motion to exclude impeachment evidence is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant subsequently declines to testify. [Citations.]” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 731 (Ledesma), citing Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 (Luce) [denial of in limine motion to preclude impeachment of the defendant with a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant did not testify] and People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [prospectively applying Luce]; see also People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 274 (Ayala) [the defendant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2014It is well established that the denial of a motion to exclude impeachment evidence is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant subsequently declines to testify. [Citations.]” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 731 (Ledesma), citing Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 (Luce) [denial of in limine motion to preclude impeachment of the defendant with a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant did not testify] and People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [prospectively applying Luce]; see also People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 274 (Ayala) [the defendant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2006(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1005 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ] [because the defendant waived attorney-client privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify during a suppression hearing, the defendant’s statements to psychiatrist could be used to impeach other experts who testified at trial]; People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 243 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] [because the defendant waived privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify at first penalty trial, psychiatrist could testify regarding the defendant’s admissions at penalty retrial].) Strictly speaking, howev 2006(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1005 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ] [because the defendant waived attorney-client privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify during a suppression hearing, the defendant’s statements to psychiatrist could be used to impeach other experts who testified at trial]; People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 243 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] [because the defendant waived privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify at first penalty trial, psychiatrist could testify regarding the defendant’s admissions at penalty retrial].) Strictly speaking, howev | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haskettgreen2 sentences2006(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1005 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ] [because the defendant waived attorney-client privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify during a suppression hearing, the defendant’s statements to psychiatrist could be used to impeach other experts who testified at trial]; People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 243 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] [because the defendant waived privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify at first penalty trial, psychiatrist could testify regarding the defendant’s admissions at penalty retrial].) Strictly speaking, howev 2006(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1005 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ] [because the defendant waived attorney-client privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify during a suppression hearing, the defendant’s statements to psychiatrist could be used to impeach other experts who testified at trial]; People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 243 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 801 P.2d 323 ] [because the defendant waived privilege by calling psychiatrist to testify at first penalty trial, psychiatrist could testify regarding the defendant’s admissions at penalty retrial].) Strictly speaking, howev | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018As DaFonte teaches, “section 1431.2 itself contains no ambiguity which would permit resort to . . . extrinsic constructional aids.” (DaFonte, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 602 , italics added.) Yet, in spite of the statute’s plain declaration that “[e]ach defendant” shall be liable “only” for those “non-economic” damages directly attributable to his or her own “percentage of fault” (§ 1431.2, subd. (a), italics added; DaFonte, at p. 601), Thomas invokes extrinsic “principles governing an intentional tortfeasor’s liability” to read a limitation into section 1431.2 that is not present in the statutory 2018As DaFonte teaches, “section 1431.2 itself contains no ambiguity which would permit resort to . . . extrinsic constructional aids.” (DaFonte, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 602 , italics added.) Yet, in spite of the statute’s plain declaration that “[e]ach defendant” shall be liable “only” for those “non-economic” damages directly attributable to his or her own “percentage of fault” (§ 1431.2, subd. (a), italics added; DaFonte, at p. 601), Thomas invokes extrinsic “principles governing an intentional tortfeasor’s liability” to read a limitation into section 1431.2 that is not present in the statutory | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2026As a general rule, “all ‘claims involving the trial court's failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; see also People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1101 [the defendant waived claim court failed to consider several mitigating factors by failing to object at sentencing hearing].) Even if not forfeited, we disagree Sardi is entitled to relief. 2026As a general rule, “all ‘claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; see People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094 , 1100–1101 [the defendant waived claim that the court failed to consider several mitigating factors by failing to object at the sentencing hearing].) Thus, arguments that sentencing choices were based on factors that are “inapplicable, duplicative, and improperly weighed” are forfeited by failing to o | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
2 sentences2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. 2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. Sundean
green
2 sentences2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. 2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. 2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Godfrey v. Steinpress
green
1 sentence2018(See Heiner, at p. 349, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 , citing Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ; American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ; Allen v. Sundean (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 216 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 863 ; Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 95 .) The Heiner court's dictum is not persuasive on a point that neither it, nor the authorities it relied upon, addressed. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Lord
green
2 sentences2015In People v. Lord (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1718 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 ], our colleagues in Division Five of this court held that the defendant waived the claim that he was denied a constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing on the necessity of a support person by failing to request a hearing or otherwise objecting to the presence of a support person. 2015In People v. Lord (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1718 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 ], our colleagues in Division Five of this court held that the defendant waived the claim that he was denied a constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing on the necessity of a support person by failing to request a hearing or otherwise objecting to the presence of a support person. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Maryland v. Craig
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at p. 1722.) Lord stated that *1297 the showing required by Adams at such a necessity hearing is “debatable,” and in dicta, suggested that the showing required under section 868.5 is that the presence of the support person “ ‘is both desired by the prosecuting witness for support and will be helpful to the prosecuting witness’ [citation].” ( Lord, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1721-1722.) In determining that the lack of a necessity hearing was waived, Lord stated: “The absence of an objection deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any procedural error and make an evidence-b 2015(Id. at p. 1722.) Lord stated that *1297 the showing required by Adams at such a necessity hearing is “debatable,” and in dicta, suggested that the showing required under section 868.5 is that the presence of the support person “ ‘is both desired by the prosecuting witness for support and will be helpful to the prosecuting witness’ [citation].” ( Lord, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1721-1722.) In determining that the lack of a necessity hearing was waived, Lord stated: “The absence of an objection deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any procedural error and make an evidence-b | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Luce v. United States
green
1 sentence2014It is well established that the denial of a motion to exclude impeachment evidence is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant subsequently declines to testify. [Citations.]” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 731 (Ledesma), citing Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 (Luce) [denial of in limine motion to preclude impeachment of the defendant with a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant did not testify] and People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [prospectively applying Luce]; see also People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 274 (Ayala) [the defendant | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2007In Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ], the state insisted the defendant waived the defense of his competence to stand trial by failing to demand a competency hearing. 2007In Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ], the state insisted the defendant waived the defense of his competence to stand trial by failing to demand a competency hearing. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Lytle
green
2 sentences2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Gragg
green
2 sentences2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Walker
green
2 sentences2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 2004There, the court concluded, the defendant waived his challenge to the court's failure to advise concerning the fine, but not his claim that its imposition violated his plea bargain. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1029-1030 .) Restitution Fund Fine "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) For felony convictions, the fine ranges from a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Chamberlain v. Hibbard
green
2 sentences1927(Chamberlin v. Hibbard, 26 Or. 428 [ 38 Pac. 437 ]; Borg v. Utah Const. Co., 117 Or. 22 [ 242 Pac. 600 ] ; 2 Bancroft’s Code, Pleading, 1268, sec. 869. 1927(Chamberlin v. Hibbard, 26 Or. 428 [ 38 Pac. 437 ]; Borg v. Utah Const. Co., 117 Or. 22 [ 242 Pac. 600 ] ; 2 Bancroft’s Code, Pleading, 1268, sec. 869. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Borg v. Utah Construction Co.
neutral
2 sentences1927(Chamberlin v. Hibbard, 26 Or. 428 [ 38 Pac. 437 ]; Borg v. Utah Const. Co., 117 Or. 22 [ 242 Pac. 600 ] ; 2 Bancroft’s Code, Pleading, 1268, sec. 869. 1927(Chamberlin v. Hibbard, 26 Or. 428 [ 38 Pac. 437 ]; Borg v. Utah Const. Co., 117 Or. 22 [ 242 Pac. 600 ] ; 2 Bancroft’s Code, Pleading, 1268, sec. 869. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Perine v. Forbush
green
1 sentence1896(Perine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. 305 ; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Dowling v. Conniff, 103 Cal. 75 ; Warren v. Riddell, 106 Cal. 352 .) 3. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
McDonald v. Conniff
green
1 sentence1896(Perine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. 305 ; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Dowling v. Conniff, 103 Cal. 75 ; Warren v. Riddell, 106 Cal. 352 .) 3. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
| Warren v. Riddell green | 1 | 1896–1896 |
| Dowling v. Conniff green | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.