People v. Huerta’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 9 Cal. 4th 464 - People v. Duvall · 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 - Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. · 151 Cal. App. 4th 524 - People v. Sullivan · 244 Cal. App. 4th 129 - People v. Perkins
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It follows under the plain text of the statute [ Pen. Code, § 459.5 ] that prosecutors would have been required to charge [the defendant] with shoplifting and could not have charged her with burglary predicated on conspiracy had Proposition 47 been in effect at the time of her offense. [The defendant] therefore qualifies to have her burglary conviction redesignated as misdemeanor shoplifting.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'went in with another accomplice and they did this together' so '[i]t's an uncharged conspiracy.' " ( Huerta , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 542 , 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 .) The court rejected this argument based on the language of section 459.5 : "The People's argument raises the question, conspiracy to do what? They answer the uncharged conspiracy was a conspiracy to commit larceny. They argue intent to commit conspiracy is not shoplifting, and burglary predicated on such a conspiracy may be charged as a felony even after the electorate enacted Proposition 47. That may be true for some forms of conspiracy. It is not true, however, for conspiracy to commit larceny. If Huerta harbored the intent to conspire to commit larceny, she necessarily harbored the intent to commit larceny as well ... [and] [i]f Huerta harbored the intent to commit larceny, [ section 459.5, subdivision (b) ] directs the offense ' shall be charged as shoplifting' and further that '[n]o person who is charged with shoplifting may also be charged with burglary or theft of the same property.' [Citation.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conspiracy played no role in the prosecution of [the defendant]. The People charged her with burglary, petty theft, and grand theft. The People entered a plea bargain with [the defendant] whereby she pled guilty to burglary and the People agreed to dismiss the grand and petty theft counts. [The defendant] entered a plea agreement based on these facts. Based on this history, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding larceny was the predicate of the burglary charge, and therefore did not err in granting [the defendant]'s petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Hernandez
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.