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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 2 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. Dalegreen2 sentences2016(Ibid.; see also People v. Martin (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 (Martin).) The court in Dale concluded that the probationer had waived his right to a contested probation revocation hearing through the conduct of his counsel “in submitting an alleged violation of probation upon the probation report,” and appellant’s “acquiesc[ence] by his silence. . . .” (Dale, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 195 .) In Martin, the court concluded that appellant had “waived his right to insist on a revocation hearing 2 The March 9, 2015 minute order indicates appellant was advised and waived his right to a hearing, b 2014Having read and considered the supplemental report, the trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for the time prescribed 7 by law with credit for the period he was previously incarcerated." ( Dale, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d. at p. 193.) The Dale court concluded that the appellant had waived his right to a contested probation revocation hearing through the "conduct of counsel in submitting an alleged violation of probation upon the probation report," and appellant's "acquiesc[ence] by silence . . . ." ( Dale, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d. at p. 195.) In Martin, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at page 486 , the | 1 | 2 |
People v. Martingreen2 sentences2016(Ibid.; see also People v. Martin (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 (Martin).) The court in Dale concluded that the probationer had waived his right to a contested probation revocation hearing through the conduct of his counsel “in submitting an alleged violation of probation upon the probation report,” and appellant’s “acquiesc[ence] by his silence. . . .” (Dale, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 195 .) In Martin, the court concluded that appellant had “waived his right to insist on a revocation hearing 2 The March 9, 2015 minute order indicates appellant was advised and waived his right to a hearing, b 2016(Ibid.; see also People v. Martin (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 (Martin).) The court in Dale concluded that the probationer had waived his right to a contested probation revocation hearing through the conduct of his counsel “in submitting an alleged violation of probation upon the probation report,” and appellant’s “acquiesc[ence] by his silence. . . .” (Dale, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 195 .) In Martin, the court concluded that appellant had “waived his right to insist on a revocation hearing 2 The March 9, 2015 minute order indicates appellant was advised and waived his right to a hearing, b | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brian K.green1 sentence2016The Court Did Not Violate D.M.’s Due Process Rights by Finding a Violation Based on the September 30, 2014 Notice D.M. argues that the juvenile court deprived him of his rights to due process and to present a defense by “permitt[ing] the prosecution to amend the September 30, 2014, section 777 notice to add a probation term not initially listed on the notice as one [D.M.] had violated.” He argues that the “amendment foreclosed [his] ability to defend himself in the contested probation revocation hearing, because he was deprived of notice of the charge made against him.” The provisions in the C | 1 | 1 |
People v. Man J.green1 sentence2016The Court Did Not Violate D.M.’s Due Process Rights by Finding a Violation Based on the September 30, 2014 Notice D.M. argues that the juvenile court deprived him of his rights to due process and to present a defense by “permitt[ing] the prosecution to amend the September 30, 2014, section 777 notice to add a probation term not initially listed on the notice as one [D.M.] had violated.” He argues that the “amendment foreclosed [his] ability to defend himself in the contested probation revocation hearing, because he was deprived of notice of the charge made against him.” The provisions in the C | 1 | 1 |
People v. Donnell L.green1 sentence2016The Court Did Not Violate D.M.’s Due Process Rights by Finding a Violation Based on the September 30, 2014 Notice D.M. argues that the juvenile court deprived him of his rights to due process and to present a defense by “permitt[ing] the prosecution to amend the September 30, 2014, section 777 notice to add a probation term not initially listed on the notice as one [D.M.] had violated.” He argues that the “amendment foreclosed [his] ability to defend himself in the contested probation revocation hearing, because he was deprived of notice of the charge made against him.” The provisions in the C | 1 | 1 |
San Diego County v. Michael L.green1 sentence2016The Court Did Not Violate D.M.’s Due Process Rights by Finding a Violation Based on the September 30, 2014 Notice D.M. argues that the juvenile court deprived him of his rights to due process and to present a defense by “permitt[ing] the prosecution to amend the September 30, 2014, section 777 notice to add a probation term not initially listed on the notice as one [D.M.] had violated.” He argues that the “amendment foreclosed [his] ability to defend himself in the contested probation revocation hearing, because he was deprived of notice of the charge made against him.” The provisions in the C | 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. Wende
green
2 sentences2025His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. 2024Roberts’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), summarizing the facts and procedural history and requesting this court to independently review the record to identify any issues warranting review. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Vickers
green
1 sentence2013A contested probation revocation hearing under People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 (Vickers) was set in January 2013, and a supplemental probation officer’s report dated December 4, 2012, was submitted to the court recommending that defendant’s probation remain revoked and that the previously suspended prison sentence be executed. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Mendez
green
2 sentences2000Margaret was under the influence of medications when Officer Isabelle arrived. [8] We recognize the procedural analysis, if not the decisional basis, of People v. Clark, supra , was criticized by the Supreme Court in People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 , footnote 7, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 . [9] Section 872, subdivision (b) provides in part: "Notwithstanding Section 1200 of the Evidence Code [the hearsay rule], [a] finding of probable cause may be based in whole or part upon the sworn testimony of a [specially qualified] law enforcement officer relating the statements of de 2000Margaret was under the influence of medications when Officer Isabelle arrived. [8] We recognize the procedural analysis, if not the decisional basis, of People v. Clark, supra , was criticized by the Supreme Court in People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 , footnote 7, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 . [9] Section 872, subdivision (b) provides in part: "Notwithstanding Section 1200 of the Evidence Code [the hearsay rule], [a] finding of probable cause may be based in whole or part upon the sworn testimony of a [specially qualified] law enforcement officer relating the statements of de | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.