 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| PEOPLE v. RACCA, E033754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| PEOPLE v. REGINALD MAURICE FAIR, A104335,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ, B165444,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| PEOPLE v. TENORIO, B173085,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS, D043160,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Bautista, F043279,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not denied his right to jury trial when the trial court found his current weapons offense to be a serious felony for enhancement purposes; the jury's finding of a gang related felony was tantamount to a jury finding of a serious felony.
|
|||||
| People v. Sorenson, H026774,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DUI defendant was adequately advised of potential fines and assessments to which a guilty plea would subject him; because fines and penalty assessments were not made part of defendant's plea agreement, their imposition did not violate agreement.
|
|||||
| RASANA v. SAN DIEGO TRANSIT, D042318,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SUZANNE M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, A108019,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
