5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 3 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. DeLeongreen2 sentences2024A. Penal Code Section 3000.08(h) Does Not Authorize Remand to Prison on a Finding of Probable Cause of a Parole Violation “[P]arolees facing revocation are constitutionally entitled to certain due process protections,” “includ[ing] the right to a prompt preliminary hearing after arrest to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a parole violation has occurred.” (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 644 3 The notice of appeal states it is an appeal from “Other” “contested parole revocation.” 4 (DeLeon), citing Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 .) Due process requires a two 2021(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ] (Morrissey); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 644 (DeLeon).) “These include the right to a prompt preliminary hearing after arrest to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a parole violation has occurred.” (DeLeon, at p. 644; Morrissey, at pp. 485-487.) The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 transferred jurisdiction over most parole revocation hearings from the Board of Parole Hearings to the superior courts. (§ 3000.08, subds. (a), (f), added by Stats. 2011, ch. 39, § 38 [Assem. | 1 | 2 |
Owens v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2010(Owens v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 238, 249 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 466 , 617 P.2d 1098 ] (Owens) [§ 1382]; Rubaum, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at pp. 933-934 [§ 1382]; People v. *884 Love (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 276, 283 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ] [§ 859b].) In particular, under section 859b, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal if a preliminary hearing is not held within 60 days of the arraignment or entry of plea, unless the defendant personally waives the right. 2010(Owens v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 238, 249 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 466 , 617 P.2d 1098 ] (Owens) [§ 1382]; Rubaum, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at pp. 933-934 [§ 1382]; People v. *884 Love (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 276, 283 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ] [§ 859b].) In particular, under section 859b, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal if a preliminary hearing is not held within 60 days of the arraignment or entry of plea, unless the defendant personally waives the right. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lovegreen2 sentences2010(Owens v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 238, 249 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 466 , 617 P.2d 1098 ] (Owens) [§ 1382]; Rubaum, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at pp. 933-934 [§ 1382]; People v. *884 Love (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 276, 283 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ] [§ 859b].) In particular, under section 859b, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal if a preliminary hearing is not held within 60 days of the arraignment or entry of plea, unless the defendant personally waives the right. 2010(Owens v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 238, 249 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 466 , 617 P.2d 1098 ] (Owens) [§ 1382]; Rubaum, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at pp. 933-934 [§ 1382]; People v. *884 Love (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 276, 283 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ] [§ 859b].) In particular, under section 859b, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal if a preliminary hearing is not held within 60 days of the arraignment or entry of plea, unless the defendant personally waives the right. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2024A. Penal Code Section 3000.08(h) Does Not Authorize Remand to Prison on a Finding of Probable Cause of a Parole Violation “[P]arolees facing revocation are constitutionally entitled to certain due process protections,” “includ[ing] the right to a prompt preliminary hearing after arrest to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a parole violation has occurred.” (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 , 644 3 The notice of appeal states it is an appeal from “Other” “contested parole revocation.” 4 (DeLeon), citing Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 .) Due process requires a two 2021(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ] (Morrissey); People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 644 (DeLeon).) “These include the right to a prompt preliminary hearing after arrest to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a parole violation has occurred.” (DeLeon, at p. 644; Morrissey, at pp. 485-487.) The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 transferred jurisdiction over most parole revocation hearings from the Board of Parole Hearings to the superior courts. (§ 3000.08, subds. (a), (f), added by Stats. 2011, ch. 39, § 38 [Assem. | 3 | 2017–2024 |
People v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2023(Ibid.)6 Accordingly, Ferrer concluded, “the Legislature did not intend for a dismissal to result unless the 6 And, because a suppression hearing is usually conducted before trial or in connection with a preliminary hearing (see § 1538.5, subds. (f)–(g)), the time limits required in those contexts protect a defendant’s right to speedy adjudication. 21 PEOPLE v. BROWN Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. requested continuance results in violation of a statutory time limit (such as § 859b or § 1382) or defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial (see Henderson, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 2023(Ibid.)6 Accordingly, Ferrer concluded, “the Legislature did not intend for a dismissal to result unless the 6 And, because a suppression hearing is usually conducted before trial or in connection with a preliminary hearing (see § 1538.5, subds. (f)–(g)), the time limits required in those contexts protect a defendant’s right to speedy adjudication. 21 PEOPLE v. BROWN Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. requested continuance results in violation of a statutory time limit (such as § 859b or § 1382) or defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial (see Henderson, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. | 2 | 2010–2023 |
People v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence2023(Ferrer, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 885 .) Indeed, the policy balance is arguably even more compelling in the suppression hearing context because, unlike preliminary hearings and trial, the Legislature “has not provided any independent right to a speedy suppression hearing.” (Id. at p. 884.) It would be anomalous to conclude the Legislature intended greater protection for a defendant’s interest in a prompt suppression hearing than in a prompt preliminary hearing or trial. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.