Legal Opinion

People v. Sloan

California Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2007No. S132605PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

May enhancement allegations be considered for purposes of the rule prohibiting multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses? (See People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 355 [228 Cal.Rptr. 509, 721 P.2d 595].) Our recent decision in People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 137 P.3d 184] (Reed), filed after the Court of Appeal decided this case, effectively answers the question in the negative. Reed held that “[c]ourts should consider the statutory elements and accusatory pleading in deciding whether a defendant received notice, and therefore…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. People v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  4. People v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. People v. IzaguirreCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API