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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Perezgreen2 sentences2020(Lawrence, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1227; see also Shaputis I, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1261, fn. 20.)’ (Shaputis II, at p. 218.) Still, ‘the finding that an inmate lacks insight must be based on a factually identifiable deficiency in perception and understanding, a deficiency that involves an aspect of the criminal conduct or its causes that are significant, and the deficiency by itself or together with the commitment offense has some rational tendency to show that the inmate currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger.’ (In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533 , 548-549.) It has been not 2020(Lawrence, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1227; see also Shaputis I, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1261, fn. 20.)’ (Shaputis II, at p. 218.) Still, ‘the finding that an inmate lacks insight must be based on a factually identifiable deficiency in perception and understanding, a deficiency that involves an aspect of the criminal conduct or its causes that are significant, and the deficiency by itself or together with the commitment offense has some rational tendency to show that the inmate currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger.’ (In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533 , 548-549.) It has been not | 3 | 3 |
In re Rynergreen2 sentences2020(Lawrence, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1227; see also Shaputis I, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1261, fn. 20.)’ (Shaputis II, at p. 218.) Still, ‘the finding that an inmate lacks insight must be based on a factually identifiable deficiency in perception and understanding, a deficiency that involves an aspect of the criminal conduct or its causes that are significant, and the deficiency by itself or together with the commitment offense has some rational tendency to show that the inmate currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger.’ (In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533 , 548-549.) It has been not 2020(Lawrence, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1227; see also Shaputis I, [supra, 44 Cal.4th] at p. 1261, fn. 20.)’ (Shaputis II, at p. 218.) Still, ‘the finding that an inmate lacks insight must be based on a factually identifiable deficiency in perception and understanding, a deficiency that involves an aspect of the criminal conduct or its causes that are significant, and the deficiency by itself or together with the commitment offense has some rational tendency to show that the inmate currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger.’ (In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533 , 548-549.) It has been not | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Butler
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Butler, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 561 .) “Appellant’s stalking conviction under section 646.9 meets the criteria of section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(Q).” (Ibid.) “A conviction under section 646.9, subdivision (a) necessarily meets the definition of force . . . .” (Id. at p. 560, italics added.) Itehua claims Butler is distinguishable because there the defendant made a verbal threat of Violence and here Itehua made no verbal threats. “[The defendant] followed his victim and threatened to kill her and members of her immediate family.” (People v. Butler, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ewing
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Ewing, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 210 .) In Butler , we held that a defendant who committed the offense of stalking came within the commitment offense requirement for an MDO commitment. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Rosenkrantz
green
2 sentences2003(Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 649 .) However, that such situations may arise does not render the procedural change invalid under the ex post facto clause. 2003Accordingly, the provision did not interfere with a prisoner’s expectations concerning parole or constitute an increase in his or her punishment for the commitment offense in violation of the ex post facto clause. ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 640-641, 650-651.) The court acknowledged that where the Governor exercises authority under the provision to reverse a grant of parole by the Board, the net result is that the prisoner will spend more time incarcerated than he or she would have before the provision was enacted. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.