first probation violation (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

first probation violation in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Torrezgreen
calctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014In other words, it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the probation condition insofar as it pertained to defendant’s actions committed before that hearing. “[D]efense counsel is not required to make futile motions or to indulge in idle acts to appear competent. [Citations.]” (People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091-1092 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 712 ].) In addition, since defendant’s position, as set forth in his testimony at the second probation violation hearing, was that he had been unaware of the condition precluding Internet access absent approval from his probation offic

2014In other words, it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the probation condition insofar as it pertained to defendant’s actions committed before that hearing. “[D]efense counsel is not required to make futile motions or to indulge in idle acts to appear competent. [Citations.]” (People v. Torrez (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091-1092 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 712 ].) In addition, since defendant’s position, as set forth in his testimony at the second probation violation hearing, was that he had been unaware of the condition precluding Internet access absent approval from his probation offic

11
In Re Hudsongreen
calctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014(In re Hudson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 74 ] [because many probation conditions are subject to securing the approval of the probation officer, probation officers “must exercise a certain amount of discretion and we will not assume that [they] will unreasonably withhold permission for legitimate computer and Internet usage”]; see In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 925 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ] [“[T]he courts are not altogether in agreement as to how far they may go in restricting adult access to the Internet, and have tended to reject complete Internet bans . . . unle

2014(In re Hudson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 74 ] [because many probation conditions are subject to securing the approval of the probation officer, probation officers “must exercise a certain amount of discretion and we will not assume that [they] will unreasonably withhold permission for legitimate computer and Internet usage”]; see In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 925 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ] [“[T]he courts are not altogether in agreement as to how far they may go in restricting adult access to the Internet, and have tended to reject complete Internet bans . . . unle

11
People v. Victor L.green
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014(In re Hudson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 74 ] [because many probation conditions are subject to securing the approval of the probation officer, probation officers “must exercise a certain amount of discretion and we will not assume that [they] will unreasonably withhold permission for legitimate computer and Internet usage”]; see In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 925 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ] [“[T]he courts are not altogether in agreement as to how far they may go in restricting adult access to the Internet, and have tended to reject complete Internet bans . . . unle

2014(In re Hudson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 74 ] [because many probation conditions are subject to securing the approval of the probation officer, probation officers “must exercise a certain amount of discretion and we will not assume that [they] will unreasonably withhold permission for legitimate computer and Internet usage”]; see In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 925 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ] [“[T]he courts are not altogether in agreement as to how far they may go in restricting adult access to the Internet, and have tended to reject complete Internet bans . . . unle

11
People v. Urkegreen
calctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 777 [credit waiver is knowing and intelligent where defendant understood he was relinquishing custody credit to which he was otherwise entitled].) Section 2900.5, subdivision (a) provides: "In all felony and misdemeanor convictions, . . . when the defendant has been in custody, . . . all days of custody . . . shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment . . . ." Subdivision (c) states that "term of imprisonment" includes "any period of imprisonment imposed as a condition of probation." It is well settled that a defendant may waive his entit

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Harvey green
cal · 1979
1 sentence

2022Ultimately, the trial court reinstated defendant’s probation and imposed 90 days in custody for that violation. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 . 3 Following the first probation violation, defendant moved from his home and did not report to his probation officer.

12022–2022
People v. Kelly green
cal · 2006
1 sentence

2016(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443 ; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126 .) The judgment is affirmed.

12016–2016
People v. Wende green
cal · 1979
1 sentence

2016(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443 ; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126 .) The judgment is affirmed.

12016–2016
People v. Quarterman green
calctapp · 2012
2 sentences

2013It found the first and second revocation proceedings involved the same issues, “ ‘whether the defendant’s conduct demonstrates that the leniency extended by the grant of probation remains justified.’ [Citation.]” (Quarterman, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1289 .) The People had the opportunity to present their entire case at the first probation hearing, and the issue sought to be relitigated was necessarily decided at the first revocation hearing.

2013It found the first and second revocation proceedings involved the same issues, “ ‘whether the defendant’s conduct demonstrates that the leniency extended by the grant of probation remains justified.’ [Citation.]” (Quarterman, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1289 .) The People had the opportunity to present their entire case at the first probation hearing, and the issue sought to be relitigated was necessarily decided at the first revocation hearing.

12013–2013
People v. Dixon green
calctapp · 2003
1 sentence

2004(People v. Dixon, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 150 ; § 1210.1, subd. (a).) However, Dixon held the defendant’s challenge to the local time imposed for the first probation violation was “not cognizable” because he did not file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of sentencing in May 2002.

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

CA 6 (2004–2022) KS 2 (2014–2019) ID 2 (2008–2012) VA 2 (2002–2022) IN 2 (2015–2020) NM 2 (2012–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check