offense charged violation in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Davisgreen cal · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017That practice was ended by our Supreme Court's decision in In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798 , 801, 106 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 505 P.2d 1018 ( Davis ), which applied the rule of Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715 , 92 S.Ct. 1845 , 32 L.Ed.2d 435 and held that "no person charged with a criminal offense and committed to a state hospital solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial may be so confined more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that he will recover that capacity in the foreseeable future." ( Davis , at p. 801, 106 Ca 2017That practice was ended by our Supreme Court's decision in In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798 , 801, 106 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 505 P.2d 1018 ( Davis ), which applied the rule of Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715 , 92 S.Ct. 1845 , 32 L.Ed.2d 435 and held that "no person charged with a criminal offense and committed to a state hospital solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial may be so confined more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that he will recover that capacity in the foreseeable future." ( Davis , at p. 801, 106 Ca	1	1
People v. Piersongreen calctapp · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974(People v. Pierson, 273 Cal.App.2d 130, 132 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) The distinction is real; it has been held that where the offense charged is a violation of section 667 and the defendant has admitted the prior felony conviction, Penal Code section 1025 operates, and in reading the information to the jury mention of the prior conviction is forbidden. 1974(People v. Pierson, 273 Cal.App.2d 130, 132 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 888 ].) The distinction is real; it has been held that where the offense charged is a violation of section 667 and the defendant has admitted the prior felony conviction, Penal Code section 1025 operates, and in reading the information to the jury mention of the prior conviction is forbidden.	1	1
People v. Brasheargreen calctapp · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974(People v. Brashear, 271 Cal.App.2d 306, 311 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 485 ].) 459 People v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App. 541 [ 28 P.2d 1076 ], cited by the Attorney General, did not involve our present problem, but held that when there has been a conviction of petty theft after a prior felony conviction, that prior conviction is such within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 dealing with eligibility for probation. 1974(People v. Brashear, 271 Cal.App.2d 306, 311 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 485 ].) 459 People v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App. 541 [ 28 P.2d 1076 ], cited by the Attorney General, did not involve our present problem, but held that when there has been a conviction of petty theft after a prior felony conviction, that prior conviction is such within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 dealing with eligibility for probation.	1	1
People v. Babbgreen calctapp · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1964–1964 2 sentences 1964(People v. Babb, 103 Cal.App.2d 326, 330 [ 229 P.2d 843 ].) The crime of illegal possession of 592 narcotics may be proved by showing that the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the narcotics. 1964(People v. Babb, 103 Cal.App.2d 326, 330 [ 229 P.2d 843 ].) The crime of illegal possession of 592 narcotics may be proved by showing that the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the narcotics.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Jackson v. Indiana green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 2017That practice was ended by our Supreme Court's decision in In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798 , 801, 106 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 505 P.2d 1018 ( Davis ), which applied the rule of Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715 , 92 S.Ct. 1845 , 32 L.Ed.2d 435 and held that "no person charged with a criminal offense and committed to a state hospital solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial may be so confined more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that he will recover that capacity in the foreseeable future." ( Davis , at p. 801, 106 Ca 2017That practice was ended by our Supreme Court's decision in In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798 , 801, 106 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 505 P.2d 1018 ( Davis ), which applied the rule of Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715 , 92 S.Ct. 1845 , 32 L.Ed.2d 435 and held that "no person charged with a criminal offense and committed to a state hospital solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial may be so confined more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that he will recover that capacity in the foreseeable future." ( Davis , at p. 801, 106 Ca	1	2017–2017
People v. Baker green calctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2002People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 ( Prettyman ) and People v. Baker (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 243 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ( Baker ) compel the trial court to instruct the jury on such target offenses because there was sufficient evidence to support that instruction. 2002People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 ( Prettyman ) and People v. Baker (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 243 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ( Baker ) compel the trial court to instruct the jury on such target offenses because there was sufficient evidence to support that instruction.	1	2002–2002
People v. Prettyman red cal · 1996 2 sentences 2002People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 ( Prettyman ) and People v. Baker (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 243 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ( Baker ) compel the trial court to instruct the jury on such target offenses because there was sufficient evidence to support that instruction. 2002People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 ( Prettyman ) and People v. Baker (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 243 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ( Baker ) compel the trial court to instruct the jury on such target offenses because there was sufficient evidence to support that instruction.	1	2002–2002
People v. Superior Court neutral calctapp · 1934 2 sentences 1974(People v. Brashear, 271 Cal.App.2d 306, 311 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 485 ].) 459 People v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App. 541 [ 28 P.2d 1076 ], cited by the Attorney General, did not involve our present problem, but held that when there has been a conviction of petty theft after a prior felony conviction, that prior conviction is such within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 dealing with eligibility for probation. 1974(People v. Brashear, 271 Cal.App.2d 306, 311 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 485 ].) 459 People v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App. 541 [ 28 P.2d 1076 ], cited by the Attorney General, did not involve our present problem, but held that when there has been a conviction of petty theft after a prior felony conviction, that prior conviction is such within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 dealing with eligibility for probation.	1	1974–1974
People v. Rhoden green cal · 1972 1 sentence 1973The Supreme Court pointed out the errors, granted relief, and sent the case back to the trial court. 3 The Rhoden opinion explains: “As in In re Smith, supra, we have catalogued the contentions which defendant’s appellate counsel failed to raise not to imply how the merits of the appeal should have been resolved but to emphasize the gross deficiencies in counsel’s presentation.” ( 6 Cal.3d at p. 529 .) 4 The record contains this colloquy outside the presence of the jury: “Mr. Malkan [attorney for defendant]: Your Honor, the offense charged is a violation of Section 209, and we feel that, under	1	1973–1973
People v. Hollander neutral calctapp · 1958 2 sentences 1963The applicable law, however, is set forth in People v. Hollander, 163 Cal.App.2d 379 , at page 381 [ 329 P.2d 740 ] : “Section 476a, subdivision (e) of the Penal Code provides that a notice of protest ‘shall be admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment and protest and shall be presumptive evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds’ in the bank on which the protested check is drawn. 1963The applicable law, however, is set forth in People v. Hollander, 163 Cal.App.2d 379 , at page 381 [ 329 P.2d 740 ] : “Section 476a, subdivision (e) of the Penal Code provides that a notice of protest ‘shall be admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment and protest and shall be presumptive evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds’ in the bank on which the protested check is drawn.	1	1963–1963
People v. Chapman green calctapp · 1947 2 sentences 1947The attorney general, in a letter filed in the proceeding, stated: “An application of the Greer case to the instant case compels the conclusion that the offense charged as a violation of sec. 702, Welfare and Institutions Code is included in the offense charged as a violation of see. 261(1) of the Penal Code and that the defendant has been twice convicted of the included offense.” Counsel for defendant, in a letter likewise so filed, stated: “I have read the Greer case very carefully and am convinced that the only point that would help the appellant herein is the holding in Subdivision 11 of t 1947The attorney general, in a letter filed in the proceeding, stated: “An application of the Greer case to the instant case compels the conclusion that the offense charged as a violation of sec. 702, Welfare and Institutions Code is included in the offense charged as a violation of see. 261(1) of the Penal Code and that the defendant has been twice convicted of the included offense.” Counsel for defendant, in a letter likewise so filed, stated: “I have read the Greer case very carefully and am convinced that the only point that would help the appellant herein is the holding in Subdivision 11 of t	1	1947–1947
People v. Degnen green calctapp · 1925 1 sentence 1947The attorney general, in a letter filed in the proceeding, stated: “An application of the Greer case to the instant case compels the conclusion that the offense charged as a violation of sec. 702, Welfare and Institutions Code is included in the offense charged as a violation of see. 261(1) of the Penal Code and that the defendant has been twice convicted of the included offense.” Counsel for defendant, in a letter likewise so filed, stated: “I have read the Greer case very carefully and am convinced that the only point that would help the appellant herein is the holding in Subdivision 11 of t	1	1947–1947

Where else courts name it

TX 24 (1988–2023) DC 9 (1979–1991) GA 9 (1976–2004) CA 7 (1947–2017) NY 5 (1934–2001) TN 5 (1999–2015) IN 4 (1929–1980) NH 4 (2009–2025) HI 3 (1995–2012) AK 3 (1969–1974) NC 3 (1938–1989) PA 2 (1985–1987) MS 2 (1994–2001) FL 2 (1991–2004) VA 2 (1982–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check