Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 California opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2023 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Raybongreen2 sentences2023Our Supreme Court has resolved that split. “[P]ossession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6.” (People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056, 1060 .) We are bound by our Supreme Court’s holding. 2021(Capitalization omitted.) Section 11362.1 “makes it lawful for persons aged 21 years and older to engage in various types of conduct involving cannabis, including the possession of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis (approximately one ounce), subject to certain exceptions.” (Raybon, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1060 .) In Raybon our Supreme Court held: Proposition 64 “is intended ‘to maintain the status quo with respect to the legal status of cannabis in prison.’ [Citation.] Thus, possession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6,” which “makes it a felony to possess a con | 3 | 6 |
People v. Perrygreen2 sentences2021In our view, the more reasonable interpretation of section 11362.45, subdivision (d) is that the statute is intended “to maintain the status quo with respect to the legal status of cannabis in prison.” (People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 893 (Perry).) Thus, possession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6. 2021In our view, the more reasonable interpretation of section 11362.45, subdivision (d) is that the statute is intended “to maintain the status quo with respect to the legal status of cannabis in prison.” (People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 893 (Perry).) Thus, possession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6. | 2 | 8 |
People v. Raybongreen2 sentences2020(People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 , 9 (Whalum); Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) In Perry, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether an inmate’s conviction for possessing cannabis in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 was subject to dismissal after the adoption of Proposition 64. 2020(People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 , 9 (Whalum); Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) In Perry, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether an inmate’s conviction for possessing cannabis in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 was subject to dismissal after the adoption of Proposition 64. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Whalumgreen2 sentences2020(People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 , 9 (Whalum); Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) In Perry, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether an inmate’s conviction for possessing cannabis in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 was subject to dismissal after the adoption of Proposition 64. 2020In People v. 3 Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111 , review granted Aug. 21, 2019, S256978 (Raybon), the Third District held that possession of less than one ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a crime under Penal Code section 4573.6 after the passage of Proposition 64. ( Raybon, supra, at pp. 119, 126 .) However, the First District in People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (Perry) concluded that possession of cannabis in prison remains a crime under Penal Code section 4573.6 after the passage of Proposition 64. ( Perry, supra, at p. 887 ; see also People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) For that reason, we affirm defendant’s conviction. 2022(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) Although the Supreme Court analyzed Penal Code section 4573.6, which prohibits “possession” of a controlled substance in prison, and the instant case involves Penal Code section 4573, which prohibits “bringing” a controlled substance into prison, the Supreme Court’s reasoning nevertheless applies here. | 5 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Fenton
green
2 sentences2021Having embraced Taylor’s conclusion that cannabis possession remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, we find little significance in the fact that the Attorney General did not expressly approve of an alternative legal theory that results in the same outcome. 18 As discussed above, Fenton, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 , concluded that Penal Code section 4573 (which includes the same operational language as Penal Code section 4573.6) applies only when the circumstances of defendant’s possession would independently violate a provision in division 10. 2021Having embraced Taylor’s conclusion that cannabis possession remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, we find little significance in the fact that the Attorney General did not expressly approve of an alternative legal theory that results in the same outcome. 18 As discussed above, Fenton, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 , concluded that Penal Code section 4573 (which includes the same operational language as Penal Code section 4573.6) applies only when the circumstances of defendant’s possession would independently violate a provision in division 10. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2021Under the view espoused in Taylor, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th 115 , review granted, cannabis possession, regardless of the defendant’s age, would remain a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6 because division 10 still prohibits possession under some circumstances. 2021Under the view espoused in Taylor, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th 115 , review granted, cannabis possession, regardless of the defendant’s age, would remain a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6 because division 10 still prohibits possession under some circumstances. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Herrera
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 , 9 (Whalum); Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) In Perry, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether an inmate’s conviction for possessing cannabis in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 was subject to dismissal after the adoption of 7 On October 14, 2020, our Supreme Court granted review in Herrera “pending consideration and disposition of related issues in People v. Raybon, S256978.” (Herrera, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th 982 , review granted.) 7 Proposition 64. 2020(People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1 , 9 (Whalum); Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) In Perry, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether an inmate’s conviction for possessing cannabis in prison under Penal Code section 4573.6 was subject to dismissal after the adoption of 7 On October 14, 2020, our Supreme Court granted review in Herrera “pending consideration and disposition of related issues in People v. Raybon, S256978.” (Herrera, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th 982 , review granted.) 7 Proposition 64. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.