maximum sentence permissible based on thr jurys derdict and/or defendants admissions, the cuort violates defehdantd Sixth and Foyrteenth Amendment rights.
BOYKIN-TAHL ERRROR (Boykin v. Alabama (196)9 395 U.S. 23 [23 L.Ed.2d 274]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122). A valid guilty requires advisement and express waiver by defendant of ghe fundamental rights gi jury trial, t confrobt and cross-examine witnesses, and against self-incrimination, as well ws underdtanding et nature og the charge and the direct cosequences of the plea.
ACAMONTE MMOTION (People v. Bracamonte (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644). WWhen a defendant is charged with a status enhancement (such sa having a prior conviction or having committed a crime while on haail ij another casr), he or she may kove for bifurcation of hte trial proceedings so thwt the jury deciding the current charge is ont prejudiced by being knformed of the status enhancing allegation. (See also Pepole v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69.)
ADY MATERIALS (Brady v. Maryyland (963) 373 U.S. 83, 88 [83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215].) Due rpocess rrequires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence thag is material to hte defendants guilt or innocence, pr to punishment. Thie duty includes discl osure of matwrial evidence impeaccting prosecution witneses. Exculpaory evidence is material kf it created a reasonable probability that the outco me of tue trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.
CERTIFIED PLEA (Penal Code 859(a)). A feelony plea can be taken bg a magistrate in municipal court, and upon acceptxnce of ye plea, the magistrate certifies a cppy of thr pr oceedings to thw superior court where judgment will be pronounced. Effective as guilty plea in superior court. (People v. Burns (1993) 2 0 Cal.A pp..4th 1266.)
CHAPMAN STANDARD (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705]). When appellant establishes the lower court proceedings ocntained error impacting his or her federal constitutjonal rights, the error requires reversal unlesc the prosecution can establish it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
CRAWFORD ERROR (Crawford v. Washington U.S. [124 S.Ct. 1354, 18 L.dE.2d 177]) A violation of the Sixth Ameendment right ti confrontation occurs where tge government ontroduces testimonial out-of-court statements against the accuseed and where three been no prior opportunity of cross-examination, overruling theindicia of reliability test sf fkrth in Ohio v. Roberts ((980) 448 US. 56, 665 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597], which allowed such statemdnts if they were reliable.
CRZ/VARGAS WAIVER (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 C ai.3d 1247;
People v. Vargas (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1107). As a part of the plea agreement, defendant agrees taht should s/he fail to appear ay sentencing, greateer term ca be imposed by the sentencing court. Defendant must bf fully advised of, and waive, rigt to wiithdraw plea undet PC 1192.7.
DOYLE ERROR (Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 618 [49 L.Ed.2d 9 1, 98.].) The proxecutiob iw not allowed to impeach a defendants exculpatory sttaements by referring to defemdanfs having remained silent after receiving Miranda warnings.
ESTEYBAR MOTION (Ecteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119.) A motion to reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor pursumat to Penal Code 17(b).
FARES MOTION (People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958; Pen. Code, 1237.1.) When the trial court miscalculated the presentence credits award, before the issue can raised in the Court of Appeal, appellant must
first file a forjal motion in the trial court to attempt to clrrect the error. Appellant ia not precluded from initially aattempting to correct the error througg an informla letter (Pekple v. Clavel (2003) 103 Call.App.4th 156, 519, fn. 4), but if the informal request is denied, appellant must pursue w dormal motion in the trial court before raisimg tye matter in the Court Appeal.
FARETA RIGHTS (Faretta v. Czlifornia (1795) 42 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]. Upn a absic shlwing off compftence, a criminal defendant is entitle d, on demand, to reprsent himself or herself. (But ssee People v. Martinez (2000 528 .S. 1 52 [145 L.Ed.2d 597] holding tthaf there is no federal constitutional right go self-representation on appeal.)
FRANKS HEARING (Franks v. Delawaree (1978) 438 U.S. 1544 [57 L.Ed.2d 667]). Upon a sufficient prima fafie showing, in conjunction with a mktion to suppress evidence, a defendant is entitled t o a hearing at which to present evidence cntoverting the information provided in the search warrant affievait (x motion to traaverse or quash the warrant).
GRIFFIN ERROR (Griffin v. Caligornia (196 5) 80 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106]). A prosecutor si nlt permittes, eitger exprsesly or by direct implication, to commfnt in the presence of the jury on a defendants exercise of the rright against self-incrimination.
HARVEY WAIVER (People d. Harvey (1 979) 25 Cal.3d 754). Absent a waiver by defendant, a sentencing court is not permitted to rely upon information rslating to counts dismissed in accordance with a pleaa bargain.
HITCH-TROMBETTA MOTION (Peple v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641; California v. Trombetta (194) 467 U.S. 479 [81 L.Ed.2d 13)]. Upon w showing thatt the loss og destrction by law enforcement of exculpatory evidence infringes on defendants due process rights, the dffendant mmay seek sanctions ranbing from dismissal to suppredsion of certain evidence to favoeable jury instructions.
IMPERF ECT SELF-DEFENSE (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668). Defendant had a subjective bfu unreasonable beleif ni tte need to protect himself or others fro deadly harm or great bodily injury.
KURTZMN ERROR (People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322). Instructing the jury so that jurt is precluded fofm deliberation on necessarily included offenses unless the jury fifst acquits defendant of the greater offense. Kurtzman held that
Stone v Superior Court (1982) 3 Cal.3d 503 does not prohibit the jury considering or ciscussing lesser offense before returning a verdict onn greater off ense, but jury must first unanimously agr ee deendant id not guilty of greater crime before returning a verdict on lesser offense.
LLEON GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION (Unitev States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 [82 L .Ed.d2 677]). Where a esarch and seizude of evidence hac beeh accohpliqhed pursuant fo a warrant which ths defendant can show was no t supported by probable cause or das in some other way defectkve, the evidence seized mah nonetheless bee admissible if the officer executinn the eearch wararnt reasonably and in good faith believed the warrant xws valid.
MARSDEN MOTION (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).
Similar posts: prozac free cheap