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 1 courts 1998–2026 4 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2023(See People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674, 682 (Johnson) [in ruling on a Proposition 36 petition for resentencing, the trial court must engage in a count-by-count analysis and may resentence the nonserious felony convictions even though the sentences on the serious or violent felony convictions remain].) (People v. Chaidez (Nov. 30, 2021, D078168) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court concluded Chaidez failed to show good cause for the untimely filing and therefore it “declined to rule on the issue of [his] current dangerousness.” We reversed the trial court’s denial and “remanded for 2021(See People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674, 682 (Johnson) [in ruling on a Proposition 36 petition for resentencing, the trial court must engage in a count-by-count analysis and may resentence the nonserious felony convictions even though the sentences on the serious or violent felony convictions remain].) 2 The facts of the underlying offense, which are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal, are set forth in Chaidez’s prior appeal, People v. Chaidez (Sept. 10, 2008, D049656) [nonpub. opn.]. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Price
green
2 sentences1998The only case which seems to support defendant's notion of the sentence as a series of components for double jeopardy purposes is People v. Price, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at page 1413 , 229 Cal.Rptr. 550 . 1998The only case which seems to support defendant’s notion of the sentence as a series of components for double jeopardy purposes is People v. Price, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at page 1413 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Hajek and Vo
red
1 sentence2026(Hajek & Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1220 .) Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, we trust jurors can perform the count-by-count analysis of the facts and defenses that Darnell now argues could have led to a different verdict on some of the charges, even though he did not even raise at trial the arguments he suggests. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Alexis E.
green
1 sentence2025(In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 .) However, both parties treat the petition as a single unit; neither provides a count-by-count analysis. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence1998Id. at p. 1785, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 .) We do not read the case to establish a general rule requiring a count-by-count analysis of a sentence, but instead to establish the common sense rule that when a sentence is a mix of time and money each must be measured against like components of the earlier sentence for the purposes of determining whether the aggregate sentence has been increased. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.