People v. Abdallah’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 53 Cal. 2d 370 - People v. Banks · 5 Cal. 4th 1142 - People v. Jones · 30 Cal. 4th 894 - Robert L. v. Superior Court · 233 Cal. App. 4th 1085 - People v. Rivera · People v. Park
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to the 'washout' rule, if a defendant is free from both prison custody and the commission of a new felony for any five-year period following discharge from custody or release on parole, the enhancement does not apply. [Citations.] Both prongs of the rule, lack of prison time and no commission of a crime leading to a felony conviction for a five-year period, are needed for the 'washout' rule to apply. This means that for the prosecution to prevent application of the 'washout' rule, it must show a defendant either served time in prison or committed a crime leading to a felony conviction within the pertinent five-year period. [Citations.] This construction furthers the legislative intent behind enactment of section 667.5, subdivision (b) of 'increasing the punishment incurred by repeat offenders and thereby deterring recidivism. [Citations.]' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Warren“A felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated as a misdemeanor under subdivision (g) shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes, except that resentencing shall not permit that person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control a firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Warren“is that under such circumstances the offense is not considered to be serious enough to entitle the court to resort to it as a prior conviction of a felony for the purposes of increasing the penalty for a subsequent crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.