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.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 7 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. Langstongreen2 sentences2024(People v Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241 [“Once the prior prison term is found true within the meaning of section 667.5[, former subdivision](b), the trial court may not stay the one-year enhancement, which is mandatory unless stricken.”]; accord, People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270 , 1275 (Saldana), review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547 [“Although never brought to the attention of the trial or appellate courts prior to the instant appellate proceeding, the parties now agree, as do we, that the trial court stayed the enhancements in error, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. 2023(See People v. Langston, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1241 [trial court required to impose or strike one-year prior prison term enhancement, but it could not stay the one-year term].) Defendant argues the enhancements’ stayed status and the resulting illegality of the sentence does not affect his entitlement to a full resentencing following the enhancements’ striking. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Saldanagreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270 , 1275 [determining that the defendant, whose prior prison term enhancements were stayed, was entitled to resentencing under § 1172.75 even though “the trial court stayed the enhancements in error, resulting in an authorized sentence”], review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547 (Saldana).) Regarding whether a stayed prior prison term enhancement is subject to resentencing under section 1172.75, the parties observe that there is a split of authority on this issue. 2024(See People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270 , 1275 [determining that the defendant, whose prior prison term enhancements were stayed, was entitled to resentencing under § 1172.75 even though “the trial court stayed the enhancements in error, resulting in an authorized sentence”], review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547 (Saldana).) B. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Portillogreen1 sentence2024(People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577 , 603 [“‘[T]he oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a subsequently entered minute order.’ [Citations.]”].) Because the minute order conflicts with the court’s oral pronouncement, we shall direct the clerk to correct the minute order. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hopkinsgreen2 sentences1986(See In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ]; People v. Moringlane, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 811 ; see also People v. Hopkins (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 110 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) It must be remembered that the purpose of Penal Code section 654 is to prohibit double *942 punishment, rather than double conviction. 1986(See In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ]; People v. Moringlane, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 811 ; see also People v. Hopkins (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 110 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) It must be remembered that the purpose of Penal Code section 654 is to prohibit double *942 punishment, rather than double conviction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moringlanered2 sentences1986(People v. Moringlane (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 811, 817 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) In each of the cases cited by appellant in support of the view that the enhancements in violation of Penal Code section 654 must be stricken, the trial court had not stayed any of the improper additional enhancements. 1986(People v. Moringlane (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 811, 817 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) In each of the cases cited by appellant in support of the view that the enhancements in violation of Penal Code section 654 must be stricken, the trial court had not stayed any of the improper additional enhancements. | 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. Alanis
green
2 sentences2016While the lower court had jurisdiction to rule on defendant's section 1170.18 applications, it had no jurisdiction to alter the sentencing imposed in defendant's current robbery case while that case was on appeal. ( People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467 , 1472-1473, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 & cases cited; cf. People v. Superior Court (Gregory) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 324 , 331-332, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 276 .) Thus, it would have been futile for defendant to challenge the enhancements in the hearing on his applications. 2016While the lower court had jurisdiction to rule on defendant's section 1170.18 applications, it had no jurisdiction to alter the sentencing imposed in defendant's current robbery case while that case was on appeal. ( People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467 , 1472-1473, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 & cases cited; cf. People v. Superior Court (Gregory) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 324 , 331-332, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 276 .) Thus, it would have been futile for defendant to challenge the enhancements in the hearing on his applications. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
green
2 sentences2016While the lower court had jurisdiction to rule on defendant's section 1170.18 applications, it had no jurisdiction to alter the sentencing imposed in defendant's current robbery case while that case was on appeal. ( People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467 , 1472-1473, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 & cases cited; cf. People v. Superior Court (Gregory) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 324 , 331-332, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 276 .) Thus, it would have been futile for defendant to challenge the enhancements in the hearing on his applications. 2016While the lower court had jurisdiction to rule on defendant's section 1170.18 applications, it had no jurisdiction to alter the sentencing imposed in defendant's current robbery case while that case was on appeal. ( People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467 , 1472-1473, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 & cases cited; cf. People v. Superior Court (Gregory) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 324 , 331-332, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 276 .) Thus, it would have been futile for defendant to challenge the enhancements in the hearing on his applications. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Renteria
green
1 sentence2024(Compare People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 , 40-41, 45, 48-49 [§ 1172.75 does not authorize resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancements], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169 (Rhodius) with People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1282-1283 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison 7 term enhancement] (Renteria); People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 305 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancement], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson); Saldana, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1272-1273, review g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Rhodius
green
1 sentence2024(Compare People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 , 40-41, 45, 48-49 [§ 1172.75 does not authorize resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancements], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169 (Rhodius) with People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1282-1283 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison 7 term enhancement] (Renteria); People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 305 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancement], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson); Saldana, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1272-1273, review g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Christianson
green
1 sentence2024(Compare People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 , 40-41, 45, 48-49 [§ 1172.75 does not authorize resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancements], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169 (Rhodius) with People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1282-1283 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison 7 term enhancement] (Renteria); People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 305 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancement], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson); Saldana, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1272-1273, review g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Wende
green
1 sentence2024DISCUSSION Having carefully reviewed the entire record provided in this case, we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 6 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Mayberry
green
1 sentence2024(Compare People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 , 40-41, 45, 48-49 [§ 1172.75 does not authorize resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancements], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169 (Rhodius) with People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1282-1283 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison 7 term enhancement] (Renteria); People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 305 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancement], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson); Saldana, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1272-1273, review g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Walker
green
2 sentences2023We choose to address the proper interpretation of the language of section 1385, and not consider it forfeited by defendant.5 There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this issue, represented by the fact the issue is now before our Supreme Court in Walker, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th 386 . 2023We choose to address the proper interpretation of the language of section 1385, and not consider it forfeited by defendant.5 There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this issue, represented by the fact the issue is now before our Supreme Court in Walker, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th 386 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Renteria
green
2 sentences2023We once again accept the People’s concession that the findings on the gang enhancements must be vacated and retrial of the enhancements prohibited, inasmuch as there was not substantial evidence to support the enhancements under the standard articulated in Renteria, supra, 13 Cal.5th 951 . 2023We once again accept the People’s concession that the findings on the gang enhancements must be vacated and retrial of the enhancements prohibited, inasmuch as there was not substantial evidence to support the enhancements under the standard articulated in Renteria, supra, 13 Cal.5th 951 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2014The Bonnetta court explained that, as a practical matter, since “a minute order is entered by the court only after hearing, the district attorney cannot easily ensure that it is entered or detect its absence.” (Id. at p. 152 [distinguishing People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , which held that error in failing to articulate reasons for sentencing choice is waived unless challenged at the time of sentencing].) As matter of policy, “the failure to set forth the reasons for a dismissal in an order entered upon the minutes is not a routine defect in sentencing. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Bonnetta
green
1 sentence2014(Bonnetta, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) In Bonnetta, our Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s failure to set forth in writing its reasons for striking the enhancements was error, which could not be waived by the People’s failure to remind the trial court of the necessity of a written order at the time of sentencing, or to object to the minute order. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re Culbreth
red
2 sentences1986(See In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ]; People v. Moringlane, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 811 ; see also People v. Hopkins (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 110 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) It must be remembered that the purpose of Penal Code section 654 is to prohibit double *942 punishment, rather than double conviction. 1986(See In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ]; People v. Moringlane, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 811 ; see also People v. Hopkins (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 110 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) It must be remembered that the purpose of Penal Code section 654 is to prohibit double *942 punishment, rather than double conviction. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.