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.
8 California opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou 2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou | 1 | 2 |
People v. Zamarripagreen2 sentences2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou 2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou | 1 | 2 |
People v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou 2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou | 1 | 2 |
People v. Casillasgreen2 sentences2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou 2018The Casillas , Walker , and Zamarripa defendants all suffered convictions that disqualified them from relief after they were convicted for felonies eligible for redesignation. ( Casillas , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 748 , 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ; Walker , supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 , 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ; Zamarripa , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 .) The *328 Montgomery defendant's disqualifying conviction occurred contemporaneously *876 with the conviction eligible for redesignation. ( Montgomery , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 .) All fou | 1 | 2 |
Robinson v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2024(Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895 (Robinson) [“in noncapital cases, if the superior court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has no statutory right to appeal”].) We also directed the appointment of counsel for Montgomery and directed counsel and the Attorney General to submit briefs on whether the trial court’s order is appealable to the extent it denied Montgomery’s motion for discovery under the RJA. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ainsworthgreen1 sentence2024(Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337 ; People v. Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1276 ; People v. Ainsworth (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 247, 251, 259 .)2 “An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341 , 344; see Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1258 [order denying “defendant’s motion [that] essentially sought anticipatory postjudgment discovery” and that trial court had no jurisdiction to grant “did not affect his sub | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024(Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337 ; People v. Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1276 ; People v. Ainsworth (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 247, 251, 259 .)2 “An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341 , 344; see Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1258 [order denying “defendant’s motion [that] essentially sought anticipatory postjudgment discovery” and that trial court had no jurisdiction to grant “did not affect his sub 2024(Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337 ; People v. Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1276 ; People v. Ainsworth (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 247, 251, 259 .)2 “An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341 , 344; see Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1258 [order denying “defendant’s motion [that] essentially sought anticipatory postjudgment discovery” and that trial court had no jurisdiction to grant “did not affect his sub | 1 | 1 |
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen2 sentences2022As the high court has observed, “habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” (Schlup v. Delo (1995) 513 U.S. 298, 319 ; see Brecht, supra, 507 U.S. at p. 633 .) The court’s consideration of the Miller/Montgomery factors on habeas did not serve to reopen direct review regardless of whether or not the court first vacated 10 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting defendant’s sentence. 2022As the high court has observed, “habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” (Schlup v. Delo (1995) 513 U.S. 298, 319 ; see Brecht, supra, 507 U.S. at p. 633 .) The court’s consideration of the Miller/Montgomery factors on habeas did not serve to reopen direct review regardless of whether or not the court first vacated 10 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting defendant’s sentence. | 1 | 1 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1984Bound as we are by the Montgomery rule as interpreted by Green (see Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]), we can reach no conclusion other than that the evidence proffered by Harvey was properly excluded. 13 Sentencing Error Harvey was sentenced to the upper term of nine years on the attempted murder count with a three-year enhancement for great bodily injury pursuant to section 12022.7. 1984Bound as we are by the Montgomery rule as interpreted by Green (see Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]), we can reach no conclusion other than that the evidence proffered by Harvey was properly excluded. 13 Sentencing Error Harvey was sentenced to the upper term of nine years on the attempted murder count with a three-year enhancement for great bodily injury pursuant to section 12022.7. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cannadygreen2 sentences1980(People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 391 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 503 P.2d 585 ].) The combined result of section 1127c and the Montgomery rule may offend one’s sense of logical symmetry, but it does not support defendant’s final argument that it is “unfair” to instruct on flight as consciousness of guilt without permitting him to call the jurors’ attention to evidence that may persuade them of his innocence. 1980(People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 391 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 503 P.2d 585 ].) The combined result of section 1127c and the Montgomery rule may offend one’s sense of logical symmetry, but it does not support defendant’s final argument that it is “unfair” to instruct on flight as consciousness of guilt without permitting him to call the jurors’ attention to evidence that may persuade them of his innocence. | 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. Picklesimer
green
1 sentence2024(Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337 ; People v. Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1276 ; People v. Ainsworth (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 247, 251, 259 .)2 “An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341 , 344; see Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1258 [order denying “defendant’s motion [that] essentially sought anticipatory postjudgment discovery” and that trial court had no jurisdiction to grant “did not affect his sub | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Alvarez
green
1 sentence2024(Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337 ; People v. Alvarez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1276 ; People v. Ainsworth (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 247, 251, 259 .)2 “An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341 , 344; see Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1258 [order denying “defendant’s motion [that] essentially sought anticipatory postjudgment discovery” and that trial court had no jurisdiction to grant “did not affect his sub | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Schlup v. Delo
red
1 sentence2022As the high court has observed, “habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” (Schlup v. Delo (1995) 513 U.S. 298, 319 ; see Brecht, supra, 507 U.S. at p. 633 .) The court’s consideration of the Miller/Montgomery factors on habeas did not serve to reopen direct review regardless of whether or not the court first vacated 10 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting defendant’s sentence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Gentile
red
2 sentences2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the 2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Floyd
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lara
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Francis
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Valenzuela
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Buycks
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Stamps
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Frahs
green
1 sentence2022His 5 (See, e.g., Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 852 ; People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 699 ; People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 , 624–625; People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424 ; People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128, 1134 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 888 ; People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 184–185; People v. Rossi, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 304; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 , 75–76.) 8 PEOPLE v. PADILLA Corrigan, J., dissenting appeal from the sentence imposed after such hearing did not transform a collateral attack on a final judgment into what the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2021And his 20-year base term is irrelevant to his constitutional disproportionality claim.” Freeman responded by filing two supplemental briefs in April 2018, arguing that his continued custody had become unconstitutionally disproportionate to his culpability and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 5 In July 2018, after the California Supreme Court had overruled Butler, the superior court invited Freeman to file a supplemental habeas corpus petition on “the Montgomery issue” (see Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. 190 (Montgomery)) and “whether Freeman has again been denied parole base | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2021And his 20-year base term is irrelevant to his constitutional disproportionality claim.” Freeman responded by filing two supplemental briefs in April 2018, arguing that his continued custody had become unconstitutionally disproportionate to his culpability and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 5 In July 2018, after the California Supreme Court had overruled Butler, the superior court invited Freeman to file a supplemental habeas corpus petition on “the Montgomery issue” (see Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. 190 (Montgomery)) and “whether Freeman has again been denied parole base | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Kirchner
green
1 sentence2021And his 20-year base term is irrelevant to his constitutional disproportionality claim.” Freeman responded by filing two supplemental briefs in April 2018, arguing that his continued custody had become unconstitutionally disproportionate to his culpability and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 5 In July 2018, after the California Supreme Court had overruled Butler, the superior court invited Freeman to file a supplemental habeas corpus petition on “the Montgomery issue” (see Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. 190 (Montgomery)) and “whether Freeman has again been denied parole base | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences1995Montgomery's analysis ended at the determination that disclosure was “material *156 on the issue of guilt or innocence.” ( 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1022 .) Montgomery did not proceed to determine whether the disclosure would have resulted in a reasonable possibility of exoneration. 1995Montgomery's analysis ended at the determination that disclosure was “material *156 on the issue of guilt or innocence.” ( 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1022 .) Montgomery did not proceed to determine whether the disclosure would have resulted in a reasonable possibility of exoneration. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.