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.
26 California opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, 2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, | 11 | 12 |
Williams v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016(See Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 485 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497 ] [probable cause determination should be made by someone "not directly involved in the case"]; Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 647 [same].) Meza advised appellant of his right to counsel and right to a formal PRCS revocation hearing which he invoked. 2016(See Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 485 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497 ] [probable cause determination should be made by someone "not directly involved in the case"]; Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 647 [same].) Meza advised appellant of his right to counsel and right to a formal PRCS revocation hearing which he invoked. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor 2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor | 1 | 5 |
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2016If the inmate rejects the "waiver offer," the inmate remains in custody until the formal revocation hearing which must be held a reasonable time after the PRCS revocation petition is filed. (§ 3455, subd. (c).) Appellant complains that the "waiver offer" procedure encourages " Alford " type admissions ( North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25 , 32-39, 91 S.Ct. 160 , 164-168, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , 168-172 ) in which the inmate protests his/her innocence but admits the alleged PRCS violation to avoid a greater punishment. 2016If the inmate rejects the "waiver offer," the inmate remains in custody until the formal revocation hearing which must be held a reasonable time after the PRCS revocation petition is filed. (§ 3455, subd. (c).) Appellant complains that the "waiver offer" procedure encourages " Alford " type admissions ( North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25 , 32-39, 91 S.Ct. 160 , 164-168, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , 168-172 ) in which the inmate protests his/her innocence but admits the alleged PRCS violation to avoid a greater punishment. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rameygreen2 sentences2015Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 20, 2016, S230503. 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The probation officer had issued a warrant under People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263, 275-276 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 545 P.2d 1333 ], in November 2012 when he could not locate Douglas, though he never filed a formal notice in court alleging a PRCS violation. 2015Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 20, 2016, S230503. 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The probation officer had issued a warrant under People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263, 275-276 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 545 P.2d 1333 ], in November 2012 when he could not locate Douglas, though he never filed a formal notice in court alleging a PRCS violation. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2021(See People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447 (Rodriguez).) Substantial evidence, apart from Exhibit 1, supports the trial court’s decision that Garcia had violated his PRCS and that his testimony that he did not know he was on supervision was not credible. 2021(See People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447 (Rodriguez).) Substantial evidence, apart from Exhibit 1, supports the trial court’s decision that Garcia had violated his PRCS and that his testimony that he did not know he was on supervision was not credible. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Byron
green
2 sentences2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor 2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor | 3 | 2016–2021 |
People v. DeLeon
green
2 sentences2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, 2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Boles v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018In that case, the imposition of sentence was suspended; here it was not. "[T]he plain meaning of the phrase 'there is pending ... any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be *435 sentenced' (§ 1381) includes a probation revocation proceeding in which the imposition of sentence was suspended when probation was granted." ( People v. Wagner , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 1056 , 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 .) This distinction was determinative: If probation had been granted following an imposition of a sentence rather than a suspended imposition of sentence, section 1381 would no 2018In that case, the imposition of sentence was suspended; here it was not. "[T]he plain meaning of the phrase 'there is pending ... any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be *435 sentenced' (§ 1381) includes a probation revocation proceeding in which the imposition of sentence was suspended when probation was granted." ( People v. Wagner , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 1056 , 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 .) This distinction was determinative: If probation had been granted following an imposition of a sentence rather than a suspended imposition of sentence, section 1381 would no | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, 2018The People do not dispute that persons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the opportunity to appear in court and provide a defense. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 , 401-403, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , 481, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 647-657, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 , 399 P.3d 13 .) The People claim, however, | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Huricks
green
2 sentences2016(In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1143-1144 ; People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208 .) The same is true of a PRCS revocation where the defendant admits the PRCS violation, waives the right to a formal revocation hearing and agrees to serve the recommended jail term. 2016(In re Vargas, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1143-1144; People v. Knight (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 337, 344 ; People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208 .) The same principle applies to PRCS revocations where the defendant admits the PRCS violation, waives the right to a formal revocation hearing, and agrees to serve a recommended jail term. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Vickers
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 457 .) The procedure for PRCS participants to agree to waiver offers from the supervising agency 4 and “admit the PRCS violation” is authorized by statute. 2016(People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 457 .) The procedure for PRCS participants to agree to waiver offers from the supervising agency 4 and “admit the PRCS violation” is authorized by statute. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Murdock
green
2 sentences2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor 2021Freeman’s argument, as we understand it, is that he was denied his right to a timely hearing on the revocation petition (issue two), and a speedy trial or its equivalent (issue three), because the Probation Department was allowed to file a second petition charging him with the same electronic monitoring violation (issue four) after the initial petition was dismissed. “[P]ersons arrested for an alleged PRCS violation and charged in a revocation petition with violating PRCS have a due process right to a prompt determination of probable cause followed by a timely revocation hearing with the oppor | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Wagner
green
2 sentences2018In that case, the imposition of sentence was suspended; here it was not. "[T]he plain meaning of the phrase 'there is pending ... any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be *435 sentenced' (§ 1381) includes a probation revocation proceeding in which the imposition of sentence was suspended when probation was granted." ( People v. Wagner , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 1056 , 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 .) This distinction was determinative: If probation had been granted following an imposition of a sentence rather than a suspended imposition of sentence, section 1381 would no 2018In that case, the imposition of sentence was suspended; here it was not. "[T]he plain meaning of the phrase 'there is pending ... any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be *435 sentenced' (§ 1381) includes a probation revocation proceeding in which the imposition of sentence was suspended when probation was granted." ( People v. Wagner , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 1056 , 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 .) This distinction was determinative: If probation had been granted following an imposition of a sentence rather than a suspended imposition of sentence, section 1381 would no | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Osorio CA4/3
green
2 sentences2017“We have discretion to decide a case that, although moot, poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur.” (People v. Osorio, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 .) The maximum length of incarceration for a PRCS violation is brief (180 days) (Pen. 2017“We have discretion to decide a case that, although moot, poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur.” (People v. Osorio, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 .) The maximum length of incarceration for a PRCS violation is brief (180 days) (Pen. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082 , 1099, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689 , 1700, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 .) If we did, the application of Proposition 47 to PRCS violation cases such as this one could result in an "F" grade. 2016(See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082 , 1099, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689 , 1700, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 .) If we did, the application of Proposition 47 to PRCS violation cases such as this one could result in an "F" grade. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Knight
green
1 sentence2016(In re Vargas, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1143-1144; People v. Knight (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 337, 344 ; People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208 .) The same principle applies to PRCS revocations where the defendant admits the PRCS violation, waives the right to a formal revocation hearing, and agrees to serve a recommended jail term. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re La Croix
green
2 sentences2016(In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154-155 .) Appellant makes no showing that any due process defect in the probable cause hearing prejudiced her or affected the outcome of the PRCS revocation hearing. 2016(In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154-155 .) Appellant makes no showing that any due process defect in the probable cause hearing prejudiced her or affected the outcome of the PRCS revocation hearing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Palmer
green
2 sentences2016(See People v. Palmer (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 663 , 665–666.) Because there was no objective reason to suspect the arrest warrant for a PRCS violation was invalid, defendant would have no grounds to attack her drug possession conviction or suppress the evidence supporting that conviction. 6 parole in the future. 2016(See People v. Palmer (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 663 , 665–666.) Because there was no objective reason to suspect the arrest warrant for a PRCS violation was invalid, defendant would have no grounds to attack her drug possession conviction or suppress the evidence supporting that conviction. 6 parole in the future. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Unzueta v. Ocean View School District
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082 , 1099, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689 , 1700, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 .) If we did, the application of Proposition 47 to PRCS violation cases such as this one could result in an "F" grade. 2016(See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082 , 1099, 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689 , 1700, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 .) If we did, the application of Proposition 47 to PRCS violation cases such as this one could result in an "F" grade. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re Vargas
green
1 sentence2016(In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1143-1144 ; People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208 .) The same is true of a PRCS revocation where the defendant admits the PRCS violation, waives the right to a formal revocation hearing and agrees to serve the recommended jail term. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Espinoza
green
2 sentences2016This results in the erasure of appellant's signature from the PRCS agreement and undercuts the Legislative direction that realigned defendants should be punished if they violate the terms of PRCS. *814 In People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635 , 640, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 77 , we said that "... the Legislative largess which resulted in appellant's release from prison came with a price, PRCS. 2016This results in the erasure of appellant's signature from the PRCS agreement and undercuts the Legislative direction that realigned defendants should be punished if they violate the terms of PRCS. *814 In People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635 , 640, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 77 , we said that "... the Legislative largess which resulted in appellant's release from prison came with a price, PRCS. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.