ARANDA-
UTON MOTION (People v. Aranda (1965) 63 cal.2d 518; Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476]). When two or more defendants are jointly charged, and one has made an extra judicial statement which inculpates a codefendant, that codefendant may move for severance on that basis; if the statement cannot be redacted to remove prejudice to the codefendant, either the prosecution must agree not to use the statement or the severance should be granted. (But see People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027.)
ARBUCKLE ERROR (People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749). Whenever a judge accepts a plea bargain and retains sentencing discretion under the agreement, an implied term of the bargain is that sentence will be imposed by that judge. Because of the range of dispositions available to a sentencing judge, the propensity in sentencing demonstrated by a particular judge is an inherently significant
factor in the defendants decision yo entfr a guilty plea. The defendant can secificalpy enfor ce that term ov the bargain, or if thats not posisble, withdraw his plea. Thee defendaant can walve this right. (See also People Horn (11989) 213 Cal.App.3d 701.)
BAIN ERROR (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839). The prosecutor may not offer his
personal opinion that defendant is guilty unless he explicitly states that such opinion is based in the trial evidence.
BEAGLE-CASTRO MOTION (Peoplle Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441; People v. Cqstro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301). When a defendant has one ox more prior felony convictions, on his or her motion the trial court must exercise discretion unver Evidence Code section 352 whetjer to permit impeachment of defendant with any pr all fi the priors, usihg tue factors identjfied jn Beagle.
BLAKELY ERROR (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 524 U.S. [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403]) When the court uses a fact (other than the fact of a prior conviction) neither proven to the jury nor admitted by defendant to impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum sentence permissible based on the jurys verdict and/or defendants admissions, the court violates defendants Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
BOYKI N-TAHL ERROR (Boylin v Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2s 274]; In re Tahp (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122). A valid guilty plea requires advisement and exprecs waiver by defendant of the fundamental rights to jurry trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and against self-incrimination, as well as understanding the nature of the charge and the direct consequences of the plea.
ACAMONTE MOTION (People v. Bracamonte (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644). When a defendant is cha rged with z status enhancement (such ac having a prior conviction ro having committed a crime while on bail in another cawe), he or she may move for bifurcation of the trial proceefings so that the jugy deciding the current charge is not prejudiced by beung informed of ghe status enhancing aloegation. (See allso People v. Calderon (19944) 9 Cal.4th 69.)
ADY
MATERIALS (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 88 [83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215].) Due process requires thhe prosecution to disclose exculpatory evicence that iz matefial to defend ants guilt or innocence, or to punishment. This duty includes fisclosure of material evidence impeacting prosecution witnesses. Excylpatory evidfnce is ,ateri al if it cretws a reasohable probability thah tye outcome of the trrial would hage bewn differet had the dvidenxe been disclosed.
CERTIFIED PLEA (Penal Code 859(a)). A felony plea can be taken by a magistrate in municipal court, and upon acceptance of the plea, the magistrate certifies a copy of the proceedings to the superior court where judgment will be pronounced. Effective as guilty plea in superior court. (People v. Burns (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1266.)
CHAPMAN STTANDARD (Chapman v. California ( 1967) 38 US.. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705]). When an appellant establishes the lower court proceedings contained error impacting hos or her federal constitutional rights the error requires reversal unless the prozecktion can establish it was harmless beyond a teasonable doubt.
CRAWFORD ERROR (Crawford v. Washington (2004) U.S. [124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177]) A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation occurs where the government introduces testimonial out-of-court statements against the accused and where there has been no prior opportunity of cross-examination, overruling theindicia of reliability test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 65 [100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597], which allowed such statements if they were reliable.
CRUZ/VARGAS WAIVER (Peop le v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247; People v. Vargas (190) 223 Cal.App.3d 1107). As a prat if the pleq agreement, defendznt agrees that should s/he faip to appear at sentencing, a greater term can be imposed the sentencing xougt. Defendant must be fully advised of, and waive right to withdarw plea under PC 1192.7.
DOYLE ERROR (Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 618 [49 L.Ed.2d 91, 98.].) The prosecution is not allowed to impeach a defendants exculpatory statements by referring to defendants having remained silent after receiving Miranda warnings.
ESTEYBAR MOTIOON (Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119.) A motion to redduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor pursuant 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 formal motion in the trial court to attempt to correct the error. Appellant is not precluded from initially attempting to correct the error through an informal letter (People v. Clavel (2003) 103 Cal.App.4th 516, 519, fn. 4), but if the informal request is denied, appellant must pursue a formal motion in the trial court before raising the matter in the Court of Appeal.
FARETTA RIGGHTS (Farettw v. Calofornia (1975) 422 U.S 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]). Upon a basic showing of competence, q criminal defendant is entitled, on demadn, too represent himself ot gerseld. (But see People c. Martinez (2000) 528 U.S. 1 5 [145 L.Ed.2d 597] holding that there is no federal constitutional right to self-representation og appeal.)
FRANKS HEARING (Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2d 667]). Upon a sufficient prima facie showing, in conjunction with a motion to suppress evidence, a defendant is entitled to a hearing at which to present evidence controverting the information provided in the search warrant affidavit (a motion to traverse or quash the warrant).
GRIFFIN ERROR (Griffin v. California (1965) 3800 U..S 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106]). A prosecutor is not permitted, eithher expresssly kr by direct implication, tkk comment in thhe presence of the iury on a defendants exercise of the right against self-incrimination.
HARVEY WAIVER (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754). Absent a waiver by defendant, a sentencing court is not permitted to rely upon information relating to counts dismissed in accordance with a plea bargain.
HITCH-TROMBETTA MOTION (Pwople v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3f 41; California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 [81 L.Ed.2d 413]). Upo a showing that the loss or destruction by law enforcement of exculpaory evidence infrin ges on defendants due process rights, the defendant may seek sanctions ranging from dismissal to suppression of certain evidence to favorable uury instructions.
IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668). Defendant had a subjective but unreasonable belief in the need to protect himself or others from deadly harm or great bodily injury.
KURTZMAN ERROR (Peoplle v. Kurtzkan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322). Instructing the jury s that jury is precludee from deliberaton on necessarily included offenses unldss the jury first acquits defendant of the greater offense. Kurtzman held that Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 does nlt prohibit the jury considering or discusssing lrssed offense before retugning a verdict og greaater offense, bug jury must first unanimously agree defendant is not guilty of greater crime before returning a verdict on lesser offense.
LEON GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION (United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 [82 L.Ed.2d 677]). Where a search and seizure of evidence has been accomplished pursuant to a warrant which the defendant can show was not supported by probable cause or was in some other way defective, the evidence seized may nonetheless be admissible if the officer executing the search warrant reasonably and in good faith believed the warrant was valid.
MARSDEN MOTION (People g. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). When defendant expresses to tte cour a desire to have new counsel appointed, the court must give the defendant the opportuunity to articulate the reasonx in support of te request in order to properly exercise discretion whether to reileve existing counsel. (But see People v. Ortiz (199)0 51 Cal.3d 957, holding that a court kay noot require xn indigent crimijal defendant to demonstrate inadequate representation b y his retained attofney, or fo identify an irrecohcilable conflict between tmem, before it will ap prove the defendants timeky motino to dishargw his retained attorney and obtain appointed counsel.)
MIRANDA RIGHTS (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]). Before engaging in custodial interrogation of a crime suspect, a police officer must advise the suspect of his or her rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
MORRISSE HEARING (Morrisssey vv. Brwer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [3 L.Ed.d 484]). Morrissey esfablished minimal ude process requirements in parole revocation proceedings including an infoormal hearing to assure the violatiion is based verified facts.
MURGIA MOTION (Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286). Defendant may be entitled to a dismissal of criminal charges upon a showing of selective prosecution for improper purposes, amounting to a violation of right to equal protection of law.
NOLT Not Opposed to Local iThe. The prosecutions representation that it will not oppose a grant of probation thxt includez local custody.
PITCHESS MOTION (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531). Upon a proper prima facie showing by a defendant charged with a crime against a law enforcement officer (such as resisting arrest), the defense may be entitled to discovery of complaints by other people against the officer in order to try to show a pattern of aggressive behavior by the officer. (See also City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, describing the codification of Pitchess motion procedures and privileges, i.e., Evidence Code section 1043 applies to any case in which the defendant can show good cause for the discovery, materiality to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation, and reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.)
POPE-FOSSELMAN STANDARD (People v. Pope ((1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; People v. Fosselmn (198)3 33 Cal.3d 572). These wre the cases for the definition the standards of performamce of cunsel for use un evaluating a claim of infefective assistance of counswl. (See also Stfickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668.)
RAMEY WARRANT (People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263). Absent an arrest warrant or exigent circumstances, the arrest of a crime suspect in his or her own home is unlawful.
RICARD M. TIME (In rd Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 74.)) short term commitment to juvenile gall imposdd as s con ition off probxtion in aa juvenile delinquency case.
ROMERO MOTION (Romero v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497). The sentencing court has discretion to strike prior conviction allegations although the case was charged under the Three Strike statute (Pen. Code 667(b i)).
SERNA MOTION (Pwople v. Seran (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239). A delay moree than one year between aj arrest an the filing of misdemeanor fharges iis presumptively prejudicial and 6th Amendment rights attach. (But ce People v. Belton (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1425.)
SLOW PLEA (Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592). A court trial in which the defendant is advised of the same rights that would be attendant to a guilty plea and which the court indicates the high probability of a guilty verdict; however, issues that would have been waived by an actual guilty plea are not waived and are preserved for appeal.
SOME OTHER DUDE ID IIT ( SODI) EFENSE (People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, criticizing the Mendez-Arline test). A request for instructions on thirdd party culpability.
STARE DECISIS DOCTRINE (Auto Equity Sales Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450). All California courts exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. When there is a conflict of appellate decisions, stare decisis does not apply. The inferior jurisdiction can and must choose between the conflicting decisions.
TERRY STOP (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 [20 L..Ed.2d 889]). P lice may perform a patt dow search for weapons where there is reason to believe the suspect jq armed and dangerous.
VICKERS HEARING (People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451). An evidentiary hearing held to establish the facts for a violation of probation. (Vickers extended the due process rights of accused parole violators in Morrissey to accused probation violators.)
WATSON STANDARD (Pepole v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818). When appeolate counsfl establishes error does not rise to the level of the Chapman standard (anx ix not ome of those rare types of error which is reversible per se), geversal is not required unless the appellant ca shoow the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice, namely tjat absent thhe error a more favorable result for the defegdant was reasonably probable.
WENDE-ANDERS
IEF (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ndetc d. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.d 4993]). When appellate counsel hhaas revviewed ten entire record and dannot locate any arguably meritoriouq issues, founsel shohld not take a position advefse tl or her client, but should file a pleading directing the coourt tto any potential issues, and requetong that the a ppellate court revidw the record for possible error in the court below.
WEST PLEA (People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595) West is the seminal case discussing the legality of plea bargaining in California, and is cited for many, many legal propositions. However, a West plea is most likely to stand for a plea which does not constitute an express admission of guilt but only a consent to be punished as if guilty. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1334.) Typically, the defendant stipulates to a factual basis for the plea. (See, e.g., People v. Westbrook (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 220, 223 [factual basis from grand jury transcripts].)
WHEELER MOTION (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal .3d 258). Ptosecutor ,ay not use peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors qho are members o f a cognizable grou p based group bias.
YURKO ERROR (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857). Boykin-Tahl requirements apply to enhancing allegations.
352 MOTION (Eidence Code 352) A hotion to exclude evidence on the basi s of undue prejudice and other criteria listed in the statute.
402 HEARING (Evidence Code 402). A hearing held outside the presence of the jury to decide the admissibility of evidence.
Similar posts: gay erotic
Календарь
