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 2015–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Felix
green
2 sentences2017We conclude nothing in the nature of the offense or how it was committed allows striking the mandatory enhancement as cruel or unusual.” (Felix, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 .) The difference between Felix and the present case is that the Felix defendant received a 10-year enhancement for merely threatening the victim with a gun, whereas defendant here received a 25-year-to-life enhancement for using the gun to shoot the victim in the head. 2016We conclude nothing in the nature of the offense or how it was committed allows striking the mandatory enhancement as cruel or unusual." ( Felix , supra , 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 , 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 .) The difference between Felix and the *598 present case is that the Felix defendant received a ten-year enhancement for merely threatening the victim with a gun, whereas defendant here received a 25-years-to-life enhancement for using the gun to shoot the victim in the head. | 4 | 2015–2017 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2025At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Felix’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Lewis (2023) 14 Cal.5th 876 , 900.) An instructional error that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove an element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, by either misdescribing or omitting the element, violates the due process clause. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.