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.
6 California opinions name it 2 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. Hayesgreen2 sentences2013If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice.” (People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 .) This rule has been applied to SVP proceedings, and specifically to an objection that the defendant was evaluated under an invalid assessment protocol. 2013If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice.’ ” (People v. Ronje (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 509, 517 (Ronje), quoting People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 ) Furthermore, “[t]he Pompa–Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, and to SVPA proceedings. [Citations].” (Ronje, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 517 .) 25 In this case, assuming arguendo the 2009 protocol is invalid as asserted by defendant, the use of evaluations bas | 2 | 4 |
People v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334 , 358, 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ["Under modern pleading procedures, notice of the particular circumstances of an alleged crime is provided by the evidence presented to the committing magistrate at the preliminary examination, not by a factually detailed information"]; People v. Graff (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 345 , 367, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 [" '[A] preliminary hearing transcript affording notice of the time, place and circumstances of charged offenses " 'is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant' " ' "].) Such notice is sufficient f 2016(See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334 , 358, 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ["Under modern pleading procedures, notice of the particular circumstances of an alleged crime is provided by the evidence presented to the committing magistrate at the preliminary examination, not by a factually detailed information"]; People v. Graff (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 345 , 367, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 [" '[A] preliminary hearing transcript affording notice of the time, place and circumstances of charged offenses " 'is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant' " ' "].) Such notice is sufficient f | 1 | 2 |
People v. Graffgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 358 [“Under modern pleading procedures, notice of the particular circumstances of an alleged crime is provided by the evidence presented to the committing magistrate at the preliminary examination, not by a factually detailed information”]; People v. Graff (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 345, 367 [“‘[A] preliminary hearing transcript affording notice of the time, place and circumstances of charged offenses “‘is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant’”’].) Such notice is sufficient for both due process and statutory purposes. 2016(See People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334 , 358, 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ["Under modern pleading procedures, notice of the particular circumstances of an alleged crime is provided by the evidence presented to the committing magistrate at the preliminary examination, not by a factually detailed information"]; People v. Graff (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 345 , 367, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 [" '[A] preliminary hearing transcript affording notice of the time, place and circumstances of charged offenses " 'is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant' " ' "].) Such notice is sufficient f | 1 | 2 |
In Re Ronjered2 sentences2013If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice.’ ” (People v. Ronje (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 509, 517 (Ronje), quoting People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 ) Furthermore, “[t]he Pompa–Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, and to SVPA proceedings. [Citations].” (Ronje, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 517 .) 25 In this case, assuming arguendo the 2009 protocol is invalid as asserted by defendant, the use of evaluations bas 2013If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice.’ ” (People v. Ronje (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 509, 517 (Ronje), quoting People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 ) Furthermore, “[t]he Pompa–Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, and to SVPA proceedings. [Citations].” (Ronje, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 517 .) 25 In this case, assuming arguendo the 2009 protocol is invalid as asserted by defendant, the use of evaluations bas | 1 | 1 |
People v. Medinagreen1 sentence2013(See Ronje, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 ; accord, People v. Medina (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 805, 816 [concluding defendant’s argument that court lacked jurisdiction because section 6601 evaluations were not conducted pursuant to a valid protocol “is an argument that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, rather than without fundamental jurisdiction”].) Moreover, as mandated by Pompa Ortiz, defendant did not seek writ relief after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the SVP petition for lack of valid evaluation protocol. | 1 | 1 |
Abelleira v. District Court of Appealgreen2 sentences2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means 2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means | 1 | 1 |
People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means 2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means | 1 | 1 |
People v. Talhelmgreen2 sentences2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means 2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means | 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. Glenn
neutral
1 sentence2009(Glenn, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 806 ; People v. Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51.) *518 Ronje is making a pretrial challenge to the evaluations leading to the commitment petition and therefore is not required to show actual prejudice to obtain habeas corpus relief. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Pompa-Ortiz
green
1 sentence2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Wright
green
1 sentence2009If he does not, and elects to go to trial, the error at the preliminary hearing can only lead to reversal of the conviction if the error created actual prejudice." ( People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 50 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 747 ] ( Hayes ).) The Pompa-Ortiz rule apples to denial of substantive rights and technical irregularities in proceedings, including SVPA proceedings. ( Hayes, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 50-51; Wright, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 ; People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) The term "jurisdictional in the fundamental sense" means | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.
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.