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 1 courts 2013–2025 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. Anthonygreen2 sentences2020(See Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 729 [accord]; Anthony, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1157 [accord].) Put differently, Cervantes’s claim on appeal does not rely on a different remedy otherwise available. 2020(See Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 729 [accord]; Anthony, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1157 [accord].) Put differently, Cervantes’s claim on appeal does not rely on a different remedy otherwise available. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2020(See Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 729 [accord]; Anthony, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1157 [accord].) Put differently, Cervantes’s claim on appeal does not rely on a different remedy otherwise available. | 1 | 1 |
People v. MacKlemgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. 2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cervantesgreen2 sentences2013An off-the-record conversation occurred between all the 2In People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356-357 (Cervantes), the court held that a sentencing court cannot delegate absolute power to a probation officer to determine the propriety, amount, and manner of restitution. 3. parties and their attorneys. 2013An off-the-record conversation occurred between all the 2In People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356-357 (Cervantes), the court held that a sentencing court cannot delegate absolute power to a probation officer to determine the propriety, amount, and manner of restitution. 3. parties and their attorneys. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nogueragreen1 sentence2013(See People v. Noguera (1994) 4 Cal.4th 599, 630 (Noguera) ["'[t]he mere asking of questions may raise an implied charge of an improper motive'"].) Cervantes's plea deal provided a motive for him to fabricate his trial testimony. | 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. Strong
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 706-707 .) This, coupled with the trial court’s acknowledgement of the sentencing error and its findings that Cervantes was not the actual shooter and was not subject to imputed liability, support Cervantes’s claim that he was entitled, at the very least, to a second-stage evidentiary hearing on his resentencing petition. 2025(People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 706-707 .) This, coupled with the trial court’s acknowledgement of the sentencing error and its findings that Cervantes was not the actual shooter and was not subject to imputed liability, support Cervantes’s claim that he was entitled, at the very least, to a second-stage evidentiary hearing on his resentencing petition. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Christianson
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 305, fn. 2; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12 (Assem. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 283 .) “[T]he Legislature is afforded considerable latitude in defining and setting the consequences of criminal offenses.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 887 .) A classification is not arbitrary or irrational simply because it is “underinclusive.” (Ibid.) “A criminal defendant has no vested interest ‘ “in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation [of] a 4 particular crime [he or she] receives.” ’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 .) “Courts routinely decline to intrude upon the ‘broad discretion’ such p | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Chatman
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 283 .) “[T]he Legislature is afforded considerable latitude in defining and setting the consequences of criminal offenses.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 887 .) A classification is not arbitrary or irrational simply because it is “underinclusive.” (Ibid.) “A criminal defendant has no vested interest ‘ “in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation [of] a 4 particular crime [he or she] receives.” ’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 .) “Courts routinely decline to intrude upon the ‘broad discretion’ such p | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. Department of Justice
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 283 .) “[T]he Legislature is afforded considerable latitude in defining and setting the consequences of criminal offenses.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 887 .) A classification is not arbitrary or irrational simply because it is “underinclusive.” (Ibid.) “A criminal defendant has no vested interest ‘ “in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation [of] a 4 particular crime [he or she] receives.” ’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 .) “Courts routinely decline to intrude upon the ‘broad discretion’ such p | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Turnage
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 283 .) “[T]he Legislature is afforded considerable latitude in defining and setting the consequences of criminal offenses.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 887 .) A classification is not arbitrary or irrational simply because it is “underinclusive.” (Ibid.) “A criminal defendant has no vested interest ‘ “in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation [of] a 4 particular crime [he or she] receives.” ’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 .) “Courts routinely decline to intrude upon the ‘broad discretion’ such p | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Enrique Ortiz Cervantes v. Bill Walker, Superintendent, Banning Road Camp
green
2 sentences2014(Cervantes, supra, 589 F.2d at p. 428 .) The Cervantes test has been adopted by California courts. 2014(Cervantes, supra, 589 F.2d at p. 428 .) The Cervantes test has been adopted by California courts. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Anthony
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. 2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. FRADIUE
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. 2014(People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 687, 695-696 ; People v. Fradiue, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1122 .) The second Miranda component is obviously interrogation. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gurule
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 620 .) Because Cervantes's January and March 2009 statements were made before the July 2009 plea deal, they were properly admitted as prior consistent statements under Evidence Code section 791, subdivision (b). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.