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.
93 California opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2026 42 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. Buckhaltergreen2 sentences2026(People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23, 40 .) We therefore affirm the trial court’s resentencing decision, but remand for the necessary credits correction and amendment of the abstract of judgment to reflect those credits. 2025When a prison term “already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.” (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 ; see also § 2900.1 [“Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of | 2 | 7 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1976Also, over defense objections, the jury was instructed (No. 23a), as indicated below, concerning the definition of recklessness 7 and malice (No. 22). 8 The court also refused defendant’s requested instruction No. 5. 9 The People concede the error in the instruction that failed to indicate that recklessness requires a conscious disregard of probable consequences, but argue that the error was harmless pursuant to People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]. 1976Also, over defense objections, the jury was instructed (No. 23a), as indicated below, concerning the definition of recklessness 7 and malice (No. 22). 8 The court also refused defendant’s requested instruction No. 5. 9 The People concede the error in the instruction that failed to indicate that recklessness requires a conscious disregard of probable consequences, but argue that the error was harmless pursuant to People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Trangreen2 sentences2023(Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1207 [applying the Chapman standard to determine that the application of the prior version of § 186.22 was prejudicial].) The People concede that the error was prejudicial and requires reversal. 2022(Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1207 [applying the Chapman standard to determine that the application of the prior version of § 186.22 was prejudicial].) The People concede that the error was prejudicial and requires reversal. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hardygreen2 sentences1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. 1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Robertsongreen2 sentences1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. 1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pinholstergreen2 sentences1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. 1996(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 204; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ]; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 53 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 655 P.2d 279 ] (plur. opn. by Kaus, J.); id. at p. 60 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) The People concede the error, but argue it was harmless. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2021The People concede this was error because neither the petition nor the record established that petitioner was 14. indisputably ineligible for resentencing. 6 (See People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798 , 815 (Duchine) [“[A]bsent a record of conviction that conclusively establishes that the petitioner engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent, the trial court should not question [the petitioner’s] evidence.”]; accord, Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) The court found petitioner was ineligible for resentencing because he was not prosecuted or convicted under the natural 2021The People concede this was error because neither the petition nor the record established that petitioner was 14. indisputably ineligible for resentencing. 6 (See People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798 , 815 (Duchine) [“[A]bsent a record of conviction that conclusively establishes that the petitioner engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent, the trial court should not question [the petitioner’s] evidence.”]; accord, Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) The court found petitioner was ineligible for resentencing because he was not prosecuted or convicted under the natural | 1 | 3 |
People v. Rajanayagamgreen2 sentences2026Thompson’s presentence credits should have included both the date of his arrest and of his sentencing hearing. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a); People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 [“Calculation of custody credit begins on the day of arrest and continues through the day of sentencing.”].) We thus direct the trial court to modify the abstract of judgment accordingly. 2021“Presentence and postsentence credit are distinct from one another and governed by ‘independent … schemes.’” (People v. Brown (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 899 , 902, quoting People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 30 .) Relevant here, “[a] defendant may ‘accrue both actual presentence custody credits under … section 2900.5 and conduct credits under … section 4019 for the period of incarceration prior to sentencing.’ [Citation.] The calculation of actual credits is performed by simply adding together ‘all days of custody’ the defendant has served. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).)” (People v. Arevalo (2018) 2 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2025“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 .) “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts … that have properly assumed jurisdiction [can] order[] correction of abstracts of judgment that [do] not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 .) “ ‘Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by am 2014(See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate courts may order abstracts of judgment corrected].) Accordingly, we will order the clerk of the 7 superior court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted of attempted murder, not attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rincon-Pinedagreen2 sentences2022What is important is whether the testimony or any other evidence convinces you, not just the number of witnesses who testify about a certain point.” The bench notes accompanying this instruction state a trial court has a sua sponte duty to provide this instruction when a jury must weigh contradictory evidence, “unless corroborating evidence is required.” (citing People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 884 .) The People concede this instruction should have been given. 1986The People concede it was error not to give CALJIC No. 2.27 as required by People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 885 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 119 , 538 P.2d 247 , 92 A.L.R.3d 845 ]. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Correagreen2 sentences2016We agree and direct the trial court to stay punishment for count 3. 2 Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. . . .” 3 Though a person may be convicted of more than one crime for the same act, section 654 proscribes multiple punishments for the same act. (§§ 654, 954; People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 33 2016Though a person may be convicted of more than one crime for the same act, section 654 proscribes multiple punishments for the same act. (§§ 654, 954; People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337 .) An “act” can encompass a “course of conduct.” (Id., at p. 335.) Unlawfully possessing a firearm and unlawfully possessing ammunition in the same firearm constitutes an indivisible course of conduct. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2005A “legally incorrect theory” is one “which, if relied upon by the jury, could not as a matter of law validly support a conviction of the charged offense.” (People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 419 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 886 P.2d 1193 ], fn. omitted.) When the prosecution presents its case to the jury on alternate theories, one of which is legally correct and the other legally incorrect, “we must reverse the conviction unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict. 2005A “legally incorrect theory” is one “which, if relied upon by the jury, could not as a matter of law validly support a conviction of the charged offense.” (People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 419 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 886 P.2d 1193 ], fn. omitted.) When the prosecution presents its case to the jury on alternate theories, one of which is legally correct and the other legally incorrect, “we must reverse the conviction unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2005(People v. Howard (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1129, 1138-1139 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 104 P.3d 107 ].) The People concede the error, but claim it was harmless. 2005(People v. Howard (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1129, 1138-1139 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 104 P.3d 107 ].) The People concede the error, but claim it was harmless. | 1 | 2 |
People v. McDanielsgreen1 sentence2025There, the People concede the error. 45 exercised discretion and reached the same conclusion]; People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 425 [remand to trial court not required when it would be an idle act].) IV. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Milgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zabellegreen1 sentence2023(People v. 5 Dunn (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 394 , 403, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S275655; see also People v. Zabelle (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1098 , 1114.) The People concede the error but contend defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object that the criminal history attached to the probation report was insufficient to establish his prior convictions. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rojasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sanchezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hiscoxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Keenergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Luckygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Woodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Carrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ortizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beaglegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Farellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Delgadogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gardnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Carlsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2026Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 ), we accept the People’s concession, vacate Romero’s sentence, remand with instructions, and otherwise affirm. 2025We accept the concession, resolve this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 ), reverse and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the court to exercise its discretion in imposing the restitution fine, and affirm in all other respects. | 11 | 2024–2026 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences1989(See People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d 247, 270-271 ; People v. Leach (1985) 41 Cal.3d 92, 109-110 [ 221 Cal. Rptr. 826 , 710 P.2d 893 ].) Instead, the jury was told only that, to establish the special circumstance, the murder must be intentional, that it involved torture, and that "[t]o prove the infliction of torture, the infliction of extreme pain must be proved no matter how long its duration." The People concede the error but argue it was harmless. (24a) We recently held in People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 414-415 [ 247 Cal. Rptr. 137 , 754 P.2d 184 ] that failure to instruct on a 1989(See People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d 247, 270-271 ; People v. Leach (1985) 41 Cal.3d 92, 109-110 [ 221 Cal. Rptr. 826 , 710 P.2d 893 ].) Instead, the jury was told only that, to establish the special circumstance, the murder must be intentional, that it involved torture, and that "[t]o prove the infliction of torture, the infliction of extreme pain must be proved no matter how long its duration." The People concede the error but argue it was harmless. (24a) We recently held in People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 414-415 [ 247 Cal. Rptr. 137 , 754 P.2d 184 ] that failure to instruct on a | 3 | 1989–2015 |
People v. Zackery
green
2 sentences2025“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 .) “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts … that have properly assumed jurisdiction [can] order[] correction of abstracts of judgment that [do] not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 .) “ ‘Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by am 2014"Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls." (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 .) Moreover, an unauthorized sentence is subject to correction at any time. | 2 | 2014–2025 |
People v. Burney
green
2 sentences2024Because we exercise our discretion to overlook defendant’s forfeiture of this issue, our analysis comes down to whether the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (due to the Confrontation Clause implications) (see People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 232 ), and whether the error was reasonably likely to result in a different outcome (due to the statutory error in admitting the evidence) (People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939 , 968). 2024Because we exercise our discretion to overlook defendant’s forfeiture of this issue, our analysis comes down to whether the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (due to the Confrontation Clause implications) (see People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 232 ), and whether the error was reasonably likely to result in a different outcome (due to the statutory error in admitting the evidence) (People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939 , 968). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2024Because we exercise our discretion to overlook defendant’s forfeiture of this issue, our analysis comes down to whether the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (due to the Confrontation Clause implications) (see People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 232 ), and whether the error was reasonably likely to result in a different outcome (due to the statutory error in admitting the evidence) (People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939 , 968). 2024Because we exercise our discretion to overlook defendant’s forfeiture of this issue, our analysis comes down to whether the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (due to the Confrontation Clause implications) (see People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 232 ), and whether the error was reasonably likely to result in a different outcome (due to the statutory error in admitting the evidence) (People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939 , 968). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2016"The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed." ( People v. Alvarez (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1170 , 1178, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 859 .) The prosecution is responsible "to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for defendant's punishment. 2016"The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed." ( People v. Alvarez (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1170 , 1178, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 859 .) The prosecution is responsible "to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for defendant's punishment. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Salcido
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311 .) A juvenile defendant who “was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole” is eligible to seek resentencing under section 1170(d). (§ 1170(d)(1)(A).) Although Carrillo’s sentence does not fall within the statute’s plain language, the constitutional right of equal protection extends section 1170(d) eligibility to juvenile offenders who were sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Paul R.
green
1 sentence2026(In re Paul R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1590 .) We again accept the concession, particularly in light of Alfonso’s alternative claim that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the restitution order constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence2025Section 1203.4 grants trial courts the authority to dismiss a conviction resulting in a probationary sentence if the defendant “has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation,” if the defendant “has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation,” or if the court otherwise determines dismissal is in “the interest of justice.” (§ 1203.4, subd. (a)(1); People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312 , 322-323.) Section 1203.4 does not specify where such petition for the relief it grants should be filed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Latimer
green
1 sentence2025Substantial Evidence Supports Consecutive Sentencing Appellant places a strong emphasis on the result in Latimer, where the victim was kidnapped, driven to the desert, and raped twice, but the court found that section 654 limited punishment to only the rapes, despite the kidnapping and the rapes being separate acts. ( Latimer, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 1216–1217.) Appellant’s argument fails in this 9. case, however, because it ignores a meaningful distinction from Latimer, evidence suggesting an intent or objective behind the kidnapping other than to facilitate the related crime. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hester
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 .) The People concede no waiver arose from appellant’s failure to specifically object to the consecutive sentence imposed in this case. 2025(People v. Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 .) The People concede no waiver arose from appellant’s failure to specifically object to the consecutive sentence imposed in this case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2025The People concede that defense counsel’s waiver of defendant’s 3 Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 . 4 presence was insufficient. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lynch
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 , 742–743 [reversing for a new sentencing hearing under amended § 1170] (Lynch).) The court erred by imposing upper terms based on aggravating factors other than prior convictions, i.e., the “great violence” of the shooting and the extreme danger to society posed by Mendez, as illustrated by his conduct, i.e., firing at least four times into the beauty salon occupied by about 12 people. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2024Under Chapman,2 we agree with defendant the error was prejudicial and will remand for resentencing. 1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Drayton green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Harden green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2023(People v. 5 Dunn (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 394 , 403, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S275655; see also People v. Zabelle (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1098 , 1114.) The People concede the error but contend defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object that the criminal history attached to the probation report was insufficient to establish his prior convictions. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Chiu red | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Tom green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Arevalo green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Jenkins green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. MONARREZ green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. DeFrance green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Mendoza yellow | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Duchine green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Olivencia green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Bailey green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Mallard green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Sharret green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. David R. neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Hoffman green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Jones green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Perez green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Voit green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Chun red | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Chambers green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Gerber green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.