8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2016 0 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. Eddie M.green2 sentences2009In In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 506-508 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 119 , 73 P.3d 1115 ], however, our Supreme Court held that an allegation under section 777 of a probation violation not amounting to a crime cannot, as a matter of law, lead to a finding that a criminal offense has been committed. 2009In In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 506-508 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 119 , 73 P.3d 1115 ], however, our Supreme Court held that an allegation under section 777 of a probation violation not amounting to a crime cannot, as a matter of law, lead to a finding that a criminal offense has been committed. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Victor L.green1 sentence2016(See Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 926 [striking probation condition barring all access to Internet-enabled computers on vagueness grounds, since the ban “could ensnare a minor in a claimed probation violation even if he were engaged in completely innocent and legitimate use of a computer for scholarly or job-related purposes”]; In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 ] [“the broad prohibition on use of the computer and Internet bore no relation to Stevens’s conviction for child molestation and imposed a greater restriction of his rights than was reasonab | 1 | 1 |
In Re Stevensgreen2 sentences2016(See Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 926 [striking probation condition barring all access to Internet-enabled computers on vagueness grounds, since the ban “could ensnare a minor in a claimed probation violation even if he were engaged in completely innocent and legitimate use of a computer for scholarly or job-related purposes”]; In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 ] [“the broad prohibition on use of the computer and Internet bore no relation to Stevens’s conviction for child molestation and imposed a greater restriction of his rights than was reasonab 2016(See Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 926 [striking probation condition barring all access to Internet-enabled computers on vagueness grounds, since the ban “could ensnare a minor in a claimed probation violation even if he were engaged in completely innocent and legitimate use of a computer for scholarly or job-related purposes”]; In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 ] [“the broad prohibition on use of the computer and Internet bore no relation to Stevens’s conviction for child molestation and imposed a greater restriction of his rights than was reasonab | 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. Vickers
green
2 sentences2016(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 ; People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , 457–459.) However, probationers are not entitled to “all the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial,” and personal waivers of the procedural rights are not required. 2014(Black v. Romano, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 612 ; People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , 457–458.) Although due process requires that the People give a defendant notice of a claimed probation violation, the less formal nature of violation proceedings allows some measure of flexibility in affording due process safeguards. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2016(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 ; People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , 457–459.) However, probationers are not entitled to “all the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial,” and personal waivers of the procedural rights are not required. 2015(Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, 786 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 ; Arreola, at pp. 1152-1153.) Although due process requires that the People give a defendant notice of a claimed probation violation, the less formal nature of probation violation proceedings allows some measure of flexibility in affording due process safeguards. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2015(Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, 786 ; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 ; Arreola, at pp. 1152-1153.) Although due process requires that the People give a defendant notice of a claimed probation violation, the less formal nature of probation violation proceedings allows some measure of flexibility in affording due process safeguards. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2014Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 , counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) "Did appellant receive sufficient notice of the claimed probation violation in case SCD223424?" 5 (2) "Was the trial court required to elicit from appellant waivers of his constitutional rights prior to accepting his admission of the probation violation?" (3) "Was appellant properly sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?" After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Henderson an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. 2014Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 , counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) "Did appellant receive sufficient notice of the claimed probation violation in case SCD223424?" 5 (2) "Was the trial court required to elicit from appellant waivers of his constitutional rights prior to accepting his admission of the probation violation?" (3) "Was appellant properly sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?" After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Henderson an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Patel
green
1 sentence2014It will no longer be necessary to seek a modification of a probation order that fails to expressly include such a scienter requirement.” (People v. Patel (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 956 , 960–961.) 6 were engaged in completely innocent use of [an electronic communication device] for scholarly or job-related purposes, or even if he were supervised by an adult during such use.’ [Citation.] For example, the condition precludes Bryce from using a photo of graffiti vandalism to illustrate the adverse impact of property damage and neighborhood blight, attaching it as an exhibit to his court-ordered essay | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Black v. Romano
green
1 sentence2014(Black v. Romano, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 612 ; People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , 457–458.) Although due process requires that the People give a defendant notice of a claimed probation violation, the less formal nature of violation proceedings allows some measure of flexibility in affording due process safeguards. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.