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 1985–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Javier A.green2 sentences1985(See In re Javier A. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 913, 959-962 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 386 ].) We all must admit the present juvenile adjudication hearing is a far cry from former closed proceedings where a judge was briefed of the charges, and proceeded to question the parents and child in a personal and casual fashion. 1985(See In re Javier A. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 913, 959-962 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 386 ].) We all must admit the present juvenile adjudication hearing is a far cry from former closed proceedings where a judge was briefed of the charges, and proceeded to question the parents and child in a personal and casual fashion. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Colegreen1 sentence2021(See Garcia, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 3, 5-6, 13; Fernandez, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 938 [section 288, subdivision (a) is not an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), which means an adjudication for that offense is unlikely to qualify as a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (i); a section 288, subdivision (a) adjudication is a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (d), only if, in the same prior juvenile case, the ward was adjudged as such based not only on the section 288, subdivision (a) violation bu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fernandezgreen2 sentences2021(See Garcia, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 3, 5-6, 13; Fernandez, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 938 [section 288, subdivision (a) is not an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), which means an adjudication for that offense is unlikely to qualify as a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (i); a section 288, subdivision (a) adjudication is a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (d), only if, in the same prior juvenile case, the ward was adjudged as such based not only on the section 288, subdivision (a) violation bu 2021(See Garcia, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 3, 5-6, 13; Fernandez, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 938 [section 288, subdivision (a) is not an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), which means an adjudication for that offense is unlikely to qualify as a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (i); a section 288, subdivision (a) adjudication is a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (d), only if, in the same prior juvenile case, the ward was adjudged as such based not only on the section 288, subdivision (a) violation bu | 1 | 1 |
In Re ELBgreen2 sentences2007(In re E.L.B. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 780, 785 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 429 ].) The court reviewed numerous legislative changes that had occurred in laws governing juveniles in the intervening eight years since Mitchell P. was handed down, concluding that “the present juvenile adjudication hearing is a far cry from former closed proceedings where a judge was briefed of the charges, and proceeded to question the parents and child in a personal and casual fashion. 2007(In re E.L.B. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 780, 785 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 429 ].) The court reviewed numerous legislative changes that had occurred in laws governing juveniles in the intervening eight years since Mitchell P. was handed down, concluding that “the present juvenile adjudication hearing is a far cry from former closed proceedings where a judge was briefed of the charges, and proceeded to question the parents and child in a personal and casual fashion. | 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. Garcia
green
1 sentence2021(See Garcia, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 3, 5-6, 13; Fernandez, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 938 [section 288, subdivision (a) is not an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), which means an adjudication for that offense is unlikely to qualify as a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (i); a section 288, subdivision (a) adjudication is a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (d), only if, in the same prior juvenile case, the ward was adjudged as such based not only on the section 288, subdivision (a) violation bu | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Falsetta
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Loy, supra, 52 Cal.4th 46, 60-61 .) He "bore no new burden of defending against the [prior] charges." (Id. at p. 61.) In People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 916-922 , our Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to section 1108. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Loy
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Loy, supra, 52 Cal.4th 46, 60-61 .) He "bore no new burden of defending against the [prior] charges." (Id. at p. 61.) In People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 916-922 , our Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to section 1108. 2013(People v. Loy, supra, 52 Cal.4th 46, 60-61 .) He "bore no new burden of defending against the [prior] charges." (Id. at p. 61.) In People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 916-922 , our Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to section 1108. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.