5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1967–1972 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Shamerygreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hightowergreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. O'CONNORgreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
The People v. Baingreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. O'CONNORgreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. O'Connorgreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kerrygreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nilesgreen2 sentences1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b 1967Therein the court stated: “It is elementary that the function of an appellate court, in reviewing a trial court judgment on direct appeal, is limited to a consideration of matters contained in the record of trial proceedings, [fn. omitted] and that ‘Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.’ [Citations.] It is therefore clear that we cannot consider on direct appeal the matter here sought to be raised.” (66 Cal.2d at pp. 396-397.) The court disapproved Shanklin , and added, ‘ ‘ the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional b | 2 | 2 |
People v. Merriamgreen2 sentences1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. 1967(People v. Merriam (1967) 66 Cal.2d 390, 398 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 426 P.2d 161 ] ; cf. People v. Coffey (1967) ante, p. 204 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 430 P.2d 15 ].) The trial record herein discloses no effort by defendant to properly raise the constitutional question, and it therefore lies without the scope of our present review. | 1 | 2 |
People v. De Waelegreen2 sentences1972(People v. De Waele (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 512, 516 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) In practice then, the Youngs rule may be deemed as merely shifting the burden of initiating the hearing from the defendant. 1972(People v. De Waele (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 512, 516 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) In practice then, the Youngs rule may be deemed as merely shifting the burden of initiating the hearing from the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Prattgreen2 sentences1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. 1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. 1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. 1967(People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 ; and in addition to People v. Hernandez (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 398, 400 [ 309 P.2d 969 ], which is cited therein, see People v. Pratt (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 838, 842 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; and People v. Chapman (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 857, 862 [ 185 P.2d 424 ].) [9] The admission of the allegations of the prior conviction should be conclusive on that issue in the absence of fraud or mistake which would warrant collateral attack on the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Woods
green
2 sentences1967Belying on In re Woods, supra, 64 Cal.2d 3 , and related cases, the court said that “an admitted prior conviction of a crime which may be used for an adjudication of habitual criminality or for the purpose of elevating an offense from a misdemeanor to a felony status (In re Luce, supra) makes it incumbent upon the trial court to ascertain whether or not at the time of the former conviction or guilty plea a defendant Avas properly advised of his constitutional right to legal assistance and whether or not he had counsel or knowingly waived the right to counsel at that former conviction. ’' (Peop 1967(See In re Woods (1966) 64 Cal.2d 3 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 689 , 409 P.2d 913 ].) We have recently held, however, that “the burden of initiating inquiry into the constitutional basis of a prior conviction lies with him who would challenge its validity rather than with the trial court,” and that a defendant’s failure to assume that burden at the trial court level forecloses consideration of the matter on direct appeal. | 2 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Shanklin
green
1 sentence1967Belying on In re Woods, supra, 64 Cal.2d 3 , and related cases, the court said that “an admitted prior conviction of a crime which may be used for an adjudication of habitual criminality or for the purpose of elevating an offense from a misdemeanor to a felony status (In re Luce, supra) makes it incumbent upon the trial court to ascertain whether or not at the time of the former conviction or guilty plea a defendant Avas properly advised of his constitutional right to legal assistance and whether or not he had counsel or knowingly waived the right to counsel at that former conviction. ’' (Peop | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Coffey
green
2 sentences1967(People v. Merriam (1967) 66 Cal.2d 390, 398 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 426 P.2d 161 ] ; cf. People v. Coffey (1967) ante, p. 204 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 430 P.2d 15 ].) The trial record herein discloses no effort by defendant to properly raise the constitutional question, and it therefore lies without the scope of our present review. 1967(People v. Merriam (1967) 66 Cal.2d 390, 398 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 426 P.2d 161 ] ; cf. People v. Coffey (1967) ante, p. 204 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 430 P.2d 15 ].) The trial record herein discloses no effort by defendant to properly raise the constitutional question, and it therefore lies without the scope of our present review. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.