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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2021 2 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. Chambersgreen2 sentences1984(See People v. Chambers (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 444, 457-458 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 306 ].) The matter is remanded to the trial court for exercise of the court’s discretion to determine whether or not there is a basis for dismissing the finding of special circumstances, and for such further sentencing proceedings if and *1059 as required after the ruling on that issue. 1984(See People v. Chambers (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 444, 457-458 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 306 ].) The matter is remanded to the trial court for exercise of the court’s discretion to determine whether or not there is a basis for dismissing the finding of special circumstances, and for such further sentencing proceedings if and *1059 as required after the ruling on that issue. | 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. Franklin
green
2 sentences2021For that reason, in light of the decision in Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 284 , the court concluded he was entitled to a limited remand at which hearing both parties could make an accurate record of the defendant’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Board of Parole Hearings, years later, could discharge its duties and give proper weight to the youth-related factors. 2021For that reason, in light of the decision in Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 284 , the court concluded he was entitled to a limited remand at which hearing both parties could make an accurate record of the defendant’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Board of Parole Hearings, years later, could discharge its duties and give proper weight to the youth-related factors. | 4 | 2019–2021 |
People v. Perez
green
2 sentences2020However, in light of the decision in Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 284 , the court held that the defendant did not have an opportunity “‘to put on the record the kinds of information that sections 3051 and 4801 deem relevant at a youth offender parole hearing.’ [Citation.]” (Perez, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 619 .) Therefore, it concluded he was entitled to a limited remand at which hearing both parties could make an accurate record of the defendant’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so 41 that the Board of Parole Hearings, years later, could discharge its dut 2019However, in light of the decision in Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 284 , the court held that the defendant did not have an opportunity “‘to put on the record the kinds of information that sections 3051 and 4801 deem relevant at a youth offender parole hearing.’ [Citation.]” (Perez, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 619 .) Therefore, it concluded he was entitled to a limited remand at which hearing both parties could make an accurate record of the defendant’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Board of Parole Hearings, years later, could discharge its duties | 3 | 2019–2021 |
People v. Benavides
green
1 sentence2014Assuming without deciding that Joiner had a constitutional right to be personally present at the remand hearing,4 we conclude the court did not err in conducting the hearing in his absence because the record shows he waived his right to be present. 4 Joiner arguably had no right to be personally present at the limited remand hearing. "'[A] defendant is not entitled to be personally present during proceedings that bear no reasonable, substantial relation to his opportunity to defend the charges against him, and the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2014Assuming without deciding that Joiner had a constitutional right to be personally present at the remand hearing,4 we conclude the court did not err in conducting the hearing in his absence because the record shows he waived his right to be present. 4 Joiner arguably had no right to be personally present at the limited remand hearing. "'[A] defendant is not entitled to be personally present during proceedings that bear no reasonable, substantial relation to his opportunity to defend the charges against him, and the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.