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 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2014(See Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 [“The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Torrezgreen2 sentences2014In other words, it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the probation condition insofar as it pertained to defendant’s actions committed before that hearing. “[D]efense counsel is not required to make futile motions or to indulge in idle acts to appear competent. [Citations.]” (People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091-1092 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 712 ].) In addition, since defendant’s position, as set forth in his testimony at the second probation violation hearing, was that he had been unaware of the condition precluding Internet access absent approval from his probation offic 2014In other words, it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the probation condition insofar as it pertained to defendant’s actions committed before that hearing. “[D]efense counsel is not required to make futile motions or to indulge in idle acts to appear competent. [Citations.]” (People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091-1092 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 712 ].) In addition, since defendant’s position, as set forth in his testimony at the second probation violation hearing, was that he had been unaware of the condition precluding Internet access absent approval from his probation offic | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ellisongreen1 sentence2013He points out that “a mootness inquiry may also include consideration of whether prejudicial consequences or disadvantageous collateral consequences can be ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (Delong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 487 ; see also People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1368-1369 .) Defendant asserts that the probation violation may have future collateral consequences, pointing out that a defendant’s poor performance on probation can be used in determining whether to grant probation 3 Pursuant to respondent’s request in the motion to dismiss, we take judicial notice of se | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mendezgreen2 sentences2004“Because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal, he cannot challenge the condition in this appeal.” (People v. Dixon, supra, at p. 150, citing People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ].) As in Dixon , appellant’s challenge to the local time imposed as a probation condition after his first violation is not cognizable in this appeal. 2004“Because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal, he cannot challenge the condition in this appeal.” (People v. Dixon, supra, at p. 150, citing People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ].) As in Dixon , appellant’s challenge to the local time imposed as a probation condition after his first violation is not cognizable in this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zunigagreen2 sentences1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. 1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. 1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. 1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ambrosegreen2 sentences1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. 1994(People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1923 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 812 ]; People v. Zuniga (1980 108 Cal.App.3d 739, 742 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 549 ]; People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227-1228 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 391 ]; People v. Harris (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) The waiver, however, must be “ ‘knowing and intelligent’ ” in the sense that it was made with “awareness of its consequences.” (People v. Harris, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 725 .) In this case, appellant admitted the second probation violation at a hearing on April 22, 1993. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2025His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating she found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Wende
green
1 sentence2025His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating she found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Barnum
green
1 sentence2013(See People v. Glaser (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 819, 821 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 1218–1219, 1225 [“Although an appeal may lie from a subsequent order, which revokes probation and places the sentence into effect, the matters arising prior to pronouncement of judgment cannot thereby be reviewed”].) Our factual summary is taken from the report of the probation officer filed November 14. 3 DISCUSSION Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Glaser
green
1 sentence2013(See People v. Glaser (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 819, 821 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 1218–1219, 1225 [“Although an appeal may lie from a subsequent order, which revokes probation and places the sentence into effect, the matters arising prior to pronouncement of judgment cannot thereby be reviewed”].) Our factual summary is taken from the report of the probation officer filed November 14. 3 DISCUSSION Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Delong
green
1 sentence2013He points out that “a mootness inquiry may also include consideration of whether prejudicial consequences or disadvantageous collateral consequences can be ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (Delong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 487 ; see also People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1368-1369 .) Defendant asserts that the probation violation may have future collateral consequences, pointing out that a defendant’s poor performance on probation can be used in determining whether to grant probation 3 Pursuant to respondent’s request in the motion to dismiss, we take judicial notice of se | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Nolan
green
1 sentence2013A similar argument was made in People v. Nolan (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1210 (Nolan), where the defendant challenged the admission of evidence supporting a probation violation. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lucido v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements.” (Lucido, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 341 .) One decision applied collateral estoppel to bar a second probation violation proceeding after the People failed to prove a probation violation in a prior proceeding. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Quarterman
green
1 sentence2013In People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280 (Quaterman), the defendant pawned a camera while allegedly knowing it was stolen. | 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.