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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Reedergreen2 sentences1984(People v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900, 920 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 479 ].) 7 Nevertheless, as we explained in Reeder , the proscription against dual use of facts contained in rule 441(c), unlike the statute, “applies to all enhancements, and hence to all consecutive sentences, without regard to the statutory source of those enhancements.” (Reeder, supra, at p. 919 .) Although the dual use of facts rule consequently applies to this case, it was not violated. 1984(People v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900, 920 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 479 ].) 7 Nevertheless, as we explained in Reeder , the proscription against dual use of facts contained in rule 441(c), unlike the statute, “applies to all enhancements, and hence to all consecutive sentences, without regard to the statutory source of those enhancements.” (Reeder, supra, at p. 919 .) Although the dual use of facts rule consequently applies to this case, it was not violated. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Burkered2 sentences1984(See People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 503, fn. 7 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 446 P.2d 138 ] [if reasons not set forth in minutes, order dismissing may not be considered a dismissal under § 1385]; but see People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45, 53-54 [ 301 P.2d 241 ].) For the guidance of the trial court on remand, we note that in the event the trial court uses the fact of the weapon use as a reason to impose one or more upper base terms, the dual use of facts bar requires the enhancement not to be imposed as to that term. 1984(See People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 503, fn. 7 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 446 P.2d 138 ] [if reasons not set forth in minutes, order dismissing may not be considered a dismissal under § 1385]; but see People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45, 53-54 [ 301 P.2d 241 ].) For the guidance of the trial court on remand, we note that in the event the trial court uses the fact of the weapon use as a reason to impose one or more upper base terms, the dual use of facts bar requires the enhancement not to be imposed as to that term. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2017"One aggravating factor is sufficient to support the imposition of an upper term. [Citations.]" ( People v. Ortiz , supra , 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1371 , 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 .) Appellant claims that the trial court committed a dual-use-of-facts violation when it "noted that [appellant] inflicted physical and emotional harm" upon Amanda. 2017"One aggravating factor is sufficient to support the imposition of an upper term. [Citations.]" ( People v. Ortiz , supra , 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1371 , 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 .) Appellant claims that the trial court committed a dual-use-of-facts violation when it "noted that [appellant] inflicted physical and emotional harm" upon Amanda. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1984(See People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 503, fn. 7 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 446 P.2d 138 ] [if reasons not set forth in minutes, order dismissing may not be considered a dismissal under § 1385]; but see People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45, 53-54 [ 301 P.2d 241 ].) For the guidance of the trial court on remand, we note that in the event the trial court uses the fact of the weapon use as a reason to impose one or more upper base terms, the dual use of facts bar requires the enhancement not to be imposed as to that term. 1984(See People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 503, fn. 7 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 446 P.2d 138 ] [if reasons not set forth in minutes, order dismissing may not be considered a dismissal under § 1385]; but see People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45, 53-54 [ 301 P.2d 241 ].) For the guidance of the trial court on remand, we note that in the event the trial court uses the fact of the weapon use as a reason to impose one or more upper base terms, the dual use of facts bar requires the enhancement not to be imposed as to that term. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.