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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Catherine S.green2 sentences2022(See, e.g., In re Catherine S. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1253, 1258 [“The concept of harmless error plays no role in an analysis of the sufficiency of evidence to support a ruling. 1992If the ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence, it is necessarily reversible.” ( 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1258 .) Unlike Catherine S., however, the error here is the failure to state the requirements on the record. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2022If the ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence, it is necessarily reversible”]; see also People v. Garcia (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1116, 1133 [reversing burglary conviction unsupported by substantial evidence in the record—without requiring any showing of prejudice].) There is good practical reason for that: it is hard for a reviewing court to abstractly determine what other evidence could have been presented in a lower court but was not, and what the effect of that evidence would have been. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Holmsengreen2 sentences2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his 2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillred2 sentences2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his 2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeVaughngreen2 sentences2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his 2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rugglesgreen2 sentences2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his 2006(People v. Ruggles (1985) 39 Cal.3d 1, 13 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 702 P.2d 170 ]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 528 P.2d 1 ], overruled on another point in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 558 P.2d 872 ]; People v. Holmsen (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) *855 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court (1) to vacate its order denying Ramirez’s suppression motion and enter a new order granting the motion; (2) to permit Ramirez to withdraw his | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William Eugene Cartergreen1 sentence1991However, in the context of a broken plea agreement, there is more at stake than the liberty of the defendant or the length of his term. ‘At stake is the honor of the govemment[,] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice . . . .’ ” (People v. Mancheno, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 865-866, quoting United States v. Carter (4th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428 (in bank).) E. | 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. Walker
yellow
2 sentences2013(Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1024 .) A violation of a plea bargain is not subject to harmless error analysis and, even if it were, “ ‘the concept of harmless error only addresses whether the defendant is prejudiced by the error. 1993However, in the context of a broken plea agreement, there is more at stake than the liberty of the defendant or the length of his term: “At stake is the honor of the government^] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice ....’” [Citations.]” CPeople v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1026 , italics added.) The distinction between a mere misadvisement with regard to the consequences of a guilty plea and a violation of a plea agreement is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison of two United States Supreme Court decisions, United States | 2 | 1993–2013 |
Santobello v. New York
green
2 sentences1993However, in the context of a broken plea agreement, there is more at stake than the liberty of the defendant or the length of his term: “At stake is the honor of the government^] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice ....’” [Citations.]” CPeople v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1026 , italics added.) The distinction between a mere misadvisement with regard to the consequences of a guilty plea and a violation of a plea agreement is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison of two United States Supreme Court decisions, United States 1993However, in the context of a broken plea agreement, there is more at stake than the liberty of the defendant or the length of his term: “At stake is the honor of the government^] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice ....’” [Citations.]” CPeople v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1026 , italics added.) The distinction between a mere misadvisement with regard to the consequences of a guilty plea and a violation of a plea agreement is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison of two United States Supreme Court decisions, United States | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Timmreck
green
1 sentence1993However, in the context of a broken plea agreement, there is more at stake than the liberty of the defendant or the length of his term: “At stake is the honor of the government^] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice ....’” [Citations.]” CPeople v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1026 , italics added.) The distinction between a mere misadvisement with regard to the consequences of a guilty plea and a violation of a plea agreement is perhaps best illustrated by a comparison of two United States Supreme Court decisions, United States | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.