California Legal Brief

AI-Generated Practitioner Briefs of California Appellate Opinions

Sixth Amendment

6 opinions tagged “Sixth Amendment”

P. v. Chhuon & Pan 6/1/26 SC

The Rule of People v. Chhuon and Pan is that defense counsel cannot concede a defendant's guilt to any crime over the defendant's express objection to maintain innocence, even as part of an alternative argument strategy, under circumstances where the defendant expressly instructs counsel not to admit guilt and counsel nevertheless argues the defendant is guilty of lesser charges to avoid the death penalty.

P. v. Bankston 6/1/26 SC

The Rule of People v. Bankston is that penalty phase proceedings in capital cases that are marked by errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)) require reversal of the death judgment, under circumstances where both prosecution and defense agree such errors occurred.

P. v. Cardenas 5/26/26 CA2/1

The Rule of People v. Cardenas is that a trial court must allow a defendant who exercises his or her right to a jury trial under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) the opportunity to argue to the jury what findings it should make as to alleged aggravating circumstances, under circumstances where the defendant has asserted the right to jury trial on aggravating factors that could be used to impose an upper term sentence.

P. v. Moss 5/4/26 CA2/8

The Rule of People v. Moss is that a trial court may reimpose an upper term sentence during Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing without additional jury findings or defendant stipulation to aggravating factors, under circumstances where the defendant was originally sentenced to an upper term.

P. v. Jones 3/17/26 CA2/6

The Rule of People v. Jones is that a defendant confined in jail in one county cannot willfully fail to appear for sentencing in another county, and the prosecution must prove a willful failure to appear with admissible evidence including certified court records, under circumstances where a defendant enters a Cruz waiver plea agreement.

P. v. Super. Ct. 1/20/26 CA4/2

The Rule of People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lashelle) is that the failure to file a misdemeanor complaint within the 25-day period specified in Penal Code section 853.6 does not deprive the government of the right to demand a cited person's presence in court and does not render the individual "automatically freed from any restraint," under circumstances where the defendant signed a written promise to appear and remains subject to statutory consequences for non-appearance including criminal prosecution, fines, and arrest.