7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 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. Vivargreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Cruz-Lopez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 212, 221 (Cruz-Lopez) [probation violation was not a guilty plea that could be withdrawn because of a misunderstanding of the immigration consequences].) Here, a preponderance of the evidence shows Carrillo did not “meaningfully understand … the … potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence” at the time of his conviction. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) However, his moving 3. papers have not demonstrated this error was “prejudicial.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529 [definition of prejud 2024(See People v. Cruz-Lopez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 212, 221 (Cruz-Lopez) [probation violation was not a guilty plea that could be withdrawn because of a misunderstanding of the immigration consequences].) Here, a preponderance of the evidence shows Carrillo did not “meaningfully understand … the … potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence” at the time of his conviction. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) However, his moving 3. papers have not demonstrated this error was “prejudicial.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529 [definition of prejud | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cruz-Lopezgreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Cruz-Lopez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 212, 221 (Cruz-Lopez) [probation violation was not a guilty plea that could be withdrawn because of a misunderstanding of the immigration consequences].) Here, a preponderance of the evidence shows Carrillo did not “meaningfully understand … the … potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence” at the time of his conviction. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) However, his moving 3. papers have not demonstrated this error was “prejudicial.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529 [definition of prejud 2024(See People v. Cruz-Lopez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 212, 221 (Cruz-Lopez) [probation violation was not a guilty plea that could be withdrawn because of a misunderstanding of the immigration consequences].) Here, a preponderance of the evidence shows Carrillo did not “meaningfully understand … the … potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence” at the time of his conviction. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) However, his moving 3. papers have not demonstrated this error was “prejudicial.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529 [definition of prejud | 2 | 2 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2023In particular, the California Supreme Court has held that “misreading instructions is at most harmless error when the written instructions received by the jury are correct.” (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1212 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 948, fn. 10 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 255 [“misreading of a jury instruction does not warrant reversal if the jury received the correct written instructions”].) And “[i]t is generally presumed that the jury was guided by the written instructions.” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 5 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Prietogreen1 sentence2023In particular, the California Supreme Court has held that “misreading instructions is at most harmless error when the written instructions received by the jury are correct.” (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1212 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 948, fn. 10 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 255 [“misreading of a jury instruction does not warrant reversal if the jury received the correct written instructions”].) And “[i]t is generally presumed that the jury was guided by the written instructions.” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 5 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Racegreen1 sentence2022(People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217 (Race).) Before turning to the merits, we reject the Attorney General’s preliminary response that (1) the claim is forfeited for failure to object below; and (2) the claim constitutes an improper challenge to the elements of Carrillo’s plea agreement, which included waiver of appeal and issuance of a protective order. | 1 | 1 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwoodgreen2 sentences1999There can be no preemption in the absence of any regulation in this area. [3] Turning briefly to the FRSA, as discussed, it contains an express preemption provision. ( 49 U.S.C. § 20106 .) As discussed,. it provides that states may adopt or continue regulation of matters relating to railroad safety until the Secretary of Transportation "prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement." ( Ibid. ) The Supreme Court has held that "preemption [under the FRSA] will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the rel 1999There can be no preemption in the absence of any regulation in this area. [3] Turning briefly to the FRSA, as discussed, it contains an express preemption provision. ( 49 U.S.C. § 20106 .) As discussed,. it provides that states may adopt or continue regulation of matters relating to railroad safety until the Secretary of Transportation "prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement." ( Ibid. ) The Supreme Court has held that "preemption [under the FRSA] will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the rel | 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. Prettyman
red
1 sentence2023(Id. at p. 1432; People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 273 .) Moreover, we explained that the giving of the language in CALCRIM No. 400, though “superfluous,” was “meaningless” without CALCRIM No. 403. ( Rivas, supra, at p. 1433 .) Carrillo argues that his case is analogous to People v. Pacheco (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 118 , review granted May 18, 2022, S274102, which directed the trial court 20 to issue an order to show cause on the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, and People v. Sanchez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 191 , which reversed the defendant’s attempted murder convicti | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Box
green
1 sentence2023In particular, the California Supreme Court has held that “misreading instructions is at most harmless error when the written instructions received by the jury are correct.” (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1212 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 948, fn. 10 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 255 [“misreading of a jury instruction does not warrant reversal if the jury received the correct written instructions”].) And “[i]t is generally presumed that the jury was guided by the written instructions.” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 5 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Rivas
green
1 sentence2023(Id. at p. 1432; People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 273 .) Moreover, we explained that the giving of the language in CALCRIM No. 400, though “superfluous,” was “meaningless” without CALCRIM No. 403. ( Rivas, supra, at p. 1433 .) Carrillo argues that his case is analogous to People v. Pacheco (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 118 , review granted May 18, 2022, S274102, which directed the trial court 20 to issue an order to show cause on the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, and People v. Sanchez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 191 , which reversed the defendant’s attempted murder convicti | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence2023In particular, the California Supreme Court has held that “misreading instructions is at most harmless error when the written instructions received by the jury are correct.” (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1212 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 948, fn. 10 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 255 [“misreading of a jury instruction does not warrant reversal if the jury received the correct written instructions”].) And “[i]t is generally presumed that the jury was guided by the written instructions.” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 5 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2022Alvarez’s shirt and skin were covered in blood. 2 The court declined Carrillo’s motion to strike his prior strikes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and his request to strike the prior serious felony convictions pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). 3. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ponce
green
2 sentences2022First, while an appellant generally waives issues on appeal that he or she did not raise in the trial court, “there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction.” (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381 .) Carrillo’s claim that the trial court lacked authority to issue the protective order as to Doe’s parents falls within such exceptions. 2022First, while an appellant generally waives issues on appeal that he or she did not raise in the trial court, “there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction.” (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381 .) Carrillo’s claim that the trial court lacked authority to issue the protective order as to Doe’s parents falls within such exceptions. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2016As part of her plea agreement, Carrillo entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 , which provided that "[t]he sentencing judge may consider [her] prior criminal history and the entire factual background of the case, including any unfiled, dismissed or stricken charges or allegations or cases when granting probation, ordering restitution or imposing sentence." Pursuant to Carrillo's plea deal, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges against 2 her. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.