receipt claim in California

2026Substantial compliance is all that is required.”].) The court in Ruiz relied on our Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885 (Patterson),8 that a defendant’s receipt of a standard section 1016.5 advisement that the plea “may” have negative immigration consequences did not operate as a per se bar to the filing of a section 1018 motion.

2021Substantial compliance is all that is required.”].) The court in Ruiz relied on our Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885 (Patterson),11 that a defendant’s receipt of a standard section 1016.5 advisement that the plea “may” have negative immigration consequences did not operate as a per se bar to the filing of a section 1018 motion.

2013(Ibid.) If a claim is properly and timely filed and served, the District Attorney must file a petition of forfeiture within 30 days of the receipt of the claim, at which point the proceeding becomes a judicial forfeiture. (§ 11488.4, subd. (j).) If no claim is timely filed and served, the District Attorney prepares a written declaration of forfeiture of the property to the state, and disburses the property as set forth by statute. (§ 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 3 11488.4, subd. (j); People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1 , 6-

2001Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (j) provides that the district attorney “ ‘shall file a petition of forfeiture’ ” within 30 days of the receipt of a claim to the property. ( 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 6 , italics in Property.) Applying the well-settled precepts we have already referred to, and noting that “an intent to divest the court of jurisdiction by time requirements is not read into a statute unless that result is expressly provided or otherwise clearly intended, [citation]” (id. at p. 8, italics added), the court held that “to construe the 30-day limitation as a mandatory

2026(Patterson, at pp. 895-896.) Based 8 Patterson, in turn, relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356 , which held, “When the law is not succinct and straightforward . . . a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.

2017Because R.C. never made such a Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 446-447 ; In re Justice P., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 188-189.) 13 request, there was no violation of Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d).

2014S.Y. v. S.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 and In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771 both involved situations where the presumed parents had demonstrated a full commitment to parenting their children and had established strong parental bonds despite unconventional living arrangements.

2014S.Y. v. S.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 and In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771 both involved situations where the presumed parents had demonstrated a full commitment to parenting their children and had established strong parental bonds despite unconventional living arrangements.

2013The petition of forfeiture shall then proceed pursuant to other provisions of this chapter, except that no additional notice need be given and no additional claim need be filed.” The purpose of administrative forfeiture is “to save the government the time and expense of a judicial proceeding in cases where the value of the property seized is small.” (People v. Angeloni (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1271 , citing Nasir, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at pp. 983-984.) Subdivision (c) of section 11488.4 states: “The Attorney General or district attorney shall make service of process regarding this petition

2001Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (j) provides that the district attorney “ ‘shall file a petition of forfeiture’ ” within 30 days of the receipt of a claim to the property. ( 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 6 , italics in Property.) Applying the well-settled precepts we have already referred to, and noting that “an intent to divest the court of jurisdiction by time requirements is not read into a statute unless that result is expressly provided or otherwise clearly intended, [citation]” (id. at p. 8, italics added), the court held that “to construe the 30-day limitation as a mandatory

2001Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (j) provides that the district attorney “ ‘shall file a petition of forfeiture’ ” within 30 days of the receipt of a claim to the property. ( 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 6 , italics in Property.) Applying the well-settled precepts we have already referred to, and noting that “an intent to divest the court of jurisdiction by time requirements is not read into a statute unless that result is expressly provided or otherwise clearly intended, [citation]” (id. at p. 8, italics added), the court held that “to construe the 30-day limitation as a mandatory

1991Bill No. 4145 as amended Aug. 11, 1986, pp. 3-4; and cf. United States v. United States Currency etc., supra, 754 F.2d at p. 212 .) Section 11488.4, subdivision (j) requires the district attorney to file the petition of forfeiture with the court within 30 days of the receipt of the claim.