|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 5 - June 7, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
In re Shirley K., D047554,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court should have considered a child's best interests when considering grandparents' petition under Welf. & Inst. Code, ? 388, to reinstate in their home a grandchild who had been in their care for 20 months, most of her life. Refusal to consider grandparents' remedial efforts supported a conclusion that the agency abused its discretion.
|
|
| |
People v. Brown, C048147,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's acquittal for elder abuse did not bar his retrial for assault and battery because his case presented only a continuing prosecution and not successive prosecutions; the protections against double jeopardy in U.S. Const., 5th Amend., Cal. Const., art. I, ? 15, and Pen. Code, ?? 654 & 1023, applied only to successive prosecutions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Moniz, C048738,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's conviction for concealing or destroying evidence in violation of Pen. Code, ? 135, was not a misdemeanor related to drugs. Therefore, defendant was ineligible for treatment under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, Pen. Code, ?? 1210 & 1210.1.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Budwiser, C049566,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pen. Code, ? 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(A), (B), did not require separate revocation hearings on two petitions. Substantial evidence supported a finding that defendant was unamenable to treatment under ? 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(B), because he was removed from a treatment program for three dirty tests and was found with a whizanator strapped to his penis.
|
|
| |
People v. Sandoval, D045846,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was entitled under Pen. Code, ? 1018, to withdraw a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter; a package deal plea agreement with three codefendants who were members of his gang was coercive because of a threat from a codefendant, the benefit to the codefendants from his plea, and the trial judge's favorable comments about the offer.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback