Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The attorney's motion for continuance at the beginning of trial was denied, although he stated that he was not as prepared as he should have been. Thereafter the defendants dismissed the defender and renewed motions for separate counsel and for a continuance. These motions were also denied. The defendants were convicted and subsequently filed ...
Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code; the other popular annotated version is Deering's, which is published by LexisNexis. The Penal Code of California forms the basis for the application of most criminal law, criminal procedure, penal institutions, and the execution of sentences, among other things, in the American state of California.
California criminal law generally follows the law of the United States. However, there are both substantive and procedural differences between how the United States federal government and California prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. This article focuses exclusively on California criminal law.
[1] The counsel for the appellant, Ronald Maines, argued that due process coupled with the decision in Faretta required the extension of a constitutional right for criminal defendants to refuse to have a court-appointed lawyer argue the appeal, thus requiring the right to extend further to allow criminal defendants to argue their own appeals ...
The Superior Court of Alameda County convicted defendant Huey P. Newton of voluntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a California police officer. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of California (First District, Fourth Division) reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. [1]
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
Ewing was charged with and convicted of felony grand theft of personal property. [5] Under California law, felony grand theft is a "wobbler," meaning that both the prosecutor and the trial judge have discretion to reduce classification of the seriousness of the crime to a misdemeanor. [6]