3 Cal. 3d 595 - People v. West’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 federal appellate · 621 state decisions

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 721 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[d]ue process of law requires that an accused be advised of the charges against him in order that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense and not be taken by surprise by evidence offered at his trial.'”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 8 Cal. 5th 57 - People v. Fontenot · 35 Cal. 3d 510 - People v. Geiger

2. ““Plea bargaining also permits the courts to treat the defendant as an individual, to analyze his emotional and physical characteristics, and to adapt the punishment to the facts of the particular offense. (See generally Newman, pp. 112-130.) In some cases, only the bargained reduction in the charge can enable the judge to exercise his discretion as to meaningful sentencing alternatives. . . . “Since 1957 California has provided by statute for a limited form of plea bargain; Penal Code section 1192.3 permitted a defendant who pled guilty to specify the punishment to the same extent that it could be specified by a jury, and provided that if the specification received the concurrence of the prosecution and the court, the punishment could not exceed that designated. In 1970 the Legislature greatly expanded this statutory form of plea bargain by enacting section 1192.5, which permits the defendant to state the punishment to the extent it may be fixed by the court, and to specify the exercise of the court’s power to grant probation or suspend sentence. Although neither section 1192.3 nor section 1192.5 encompass the form of plea bargain used in the present case, that is, the plea to a lesser offense without specification of punishment, their enactment demonstrates the growing legislative recognition and approval of plea bargaining. The procedure set forth in these sections provides guidelines which the trial court can utilize in receiving and considering plea bargains involving ple”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Cal. App. 3d 25 - People v. Smith · 128 Cal. App. 3d 253 - People v. Jones

3. “When a defendant pleads not guilty, the court lacks jurisdiction to convict him of an offense that is neither charged nor necessarily included in the alleged crime. ( In re Hess (1955) 45 Cal.2d 171, 174-175 [ 288 P.2d 5 ]; People v. Wilson (1969) 271 Cal. App.2d 60, 62 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 195 ].) This reasoning rests upon a constitutional basis: `Due process of law requires that an accused be advised of the charges against him in order that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense and not be taken by surprise by evidence offered at his trial.' ( In re Hess, supra, 45 Cal.2d at p. 175 .) Thus if the accusatory pleading adequately notifies the defendant that the People will seek to prove the elements of a lesser offense, the court has jurisdiction to convict of that lesser offense although the statutory definition of the lesser crime does not logically compose a part of the greater. ( People v. Marshall (1957) 48 Cal.2d 394, 405 [ 309 P.2d 456 ].) [Footnote omitted.] Since a defendant who requests or acquiesces in conviction of a lesser offense cannot legitimately claim lack of notice, the court has jurisdiction to convict him of that offense. ( People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66, 74-75 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 199 , 450 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Taylor (1969) 273 Cal. App.2d 477, 485 [ 78 Cal. Rptr. 51 ]; People v. Blunt (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 200, 204 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 440 ]; People v. Powell (1965) 236 Cal. App.2d 884, 887-888 [ 46 Cal. Rptr. 417 ].)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kirkpatrick v. Dana J. · 51 Cal. App. 3d 434 - In Re Troglin