People v. Clancey (1/10/12) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 (reversing conviction, where court engaged in unlawful judicial plea bargaining by informing the defendant that it would impose a five-year term and strike a strike if he admitted all of the charges and allegations against him, and that he could withdraw his pleas and admissions if the trial court did not follow through on its offer).

People v. Villanueva (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 411 (no vindictive prosecution although a defendant who was convicted on a lesser offense at retrial (with an enhancement) received a longer sentence than he had received after his initial conviction of a greater offense).

People v. Johnson, 53 Cal.4th 519, 267 P.3d 1125 (Jan. 30, 2012) (the fact that a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial does not necessarily mean that he is also competent to represent himself).

During calendar 2011, Governor Brown granted 21 pardons, but no commutations or reprieves.

People v. Briseno, 203 Cal.App.4th 1347, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 283
(6th Dist. Feb. 28, 2012) (dismissing defendant's appeal for lack of a timely obtained certificate of probable cause, so court was without jurisdiction to address the appeal notwithstanding a federal district court order that the defendant be allowed to appeal); compare Briseno v. Woodford (9th Cir.2010) 413 Fed.Appx. 2 (circuit court found the trial courts failure to advise the defendant at plea of the mandatory minimum sentence, which was prejudicial because there was a reasonable chance he would be successful on appeal.).

If the prosecution objects to striking the name of the specific controlled substance from the charge, on the ground that the prosecution will lose its ability to charge the current conviction as a prior controlled substances conviction in a future drug prosecution, counsel can stipulate that the current conviction may be used as a prior under that code section without admitting the exact nature of the controlled substance involved in the current case. Counsel can make it a People v.

Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009) (statutes should be interpreted to avoid superfluity) (quoting Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004) ([O]ne of the most basic interpretive canons is that a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant....)).

Use of interpreters at secondary immigration inspection:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/FR/HTML/FR/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-30133/0-0-0-...

American Bar Association, ABA Standards for Language Access in Courts (2012)
http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1326398698_31_1...

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=38411
ICE directive, effective 1/4/12, establishes new requirements for the transfer of immigration detainees. ICE states that the new policy will substantially reduce the transfer of detainees who have family members, attorneys, or pending immigration proceedings in the area. AILA Doc. No. 12020260.