Skip to content
Name: People v. Arnold
Case #: S106444
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/28/2004

When a defendant knowingly and intelligently waives jail-time custody credits in order to be placed on probation, the waiver applies to any future use of such credits, including a prison sentence following a later violation of probation. At the time of his original plea, the defendant signed a waiver in which he agreed to waive all credits for jail time served up to that point, pursuant to People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3rd 183. Following a violation of probation, the defendant was reinstated on probation on condition of serving an additional 90 days in county jail; he again…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jeffrey
Case #: S105978
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/28/2004

In this companion case to People v. Arnold, the Supreme Court held that the waiver policy adopted in Arnold applied equally to cases in which the defendant has entered a residential drug or alcohol treatment facility. The defendant was placed on probation and ordered to enter a residential treatment facility, and in order to qualify for placement in that facility she was required to waive all presentence custody credits as well as any future credits she would earn in the treatment facility. The court held that nothing in the agreement indicated that the waiver was limited in scope,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Stevens
Case #: B170328
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 06/29/2004

A parole condition that prevents a convicted child molester from possessing a computer or using the internet is unreasonable. The defendant here was convicted of crimes involving children, but not involving use of a computer or the internet; in fact, a search of his home computer revealed that it had not been used to contact children, download child pornography, or commit any crime. Nonetheless, when he was released on parole a special term was added to his parole conditions, preventing him from possessing or having access to computer hardware or software, including access to the internet. Stevens…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Cortinas
Case #: H025526
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/13/2004
Subsequent History: 6/10/04 Rehrg. gr.; Rev. gr. 7/26/04

The Prison Board’s finding that a convicted murderer was unsuitable for parole was supported by "some evidence," and therefore a court had no authority to reverse that finding and set a parole date. The prisoner in this case sought habeas relief after the Prison Board denied him parole in spite of his having remained discipline-free for a number of years and despite his progress in some areas of his rehabilitation, and a writ issued upon a finding that the Board’s decision was contrary to the evidence presented at the prisoner’s parole hearings. The court hearing the writ petition…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bowers
Case #: A095890
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/23/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 8/11/04

In a prior opinion, the appellate court, relying on the reasoning of In re Tyrell J. concluded that the search of appellant was reasonable and justified because appellant was a probationer subject to a search condition, even though at the time of the search in this case the officers were unaware of that status. The California Supreme Court granted review of that decision and held it pending the decision in People v. Sanders. In that case, the Supreme Court declined to apply the reasoning of Tyrell J. to an adult parolee in the context of a residential search.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Connor
Case #: H024743
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/06/2004
Subsequent History: None

While probation reports in criminal cases are available to the public without restriction for sixty days after probation is granted, following the sixty-day period the media’s access to a probation report is subject to certain restrictions. The court here found that the statutory restriction on public access to probation reports was intended to restore a measure of privacy to the probationer. Thus, if access to a probation report is sought by petition, the subject of the report is entitled to notice and a hearing, and upon weighing the subject’s interest in confidentiality against the potential benefit from the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Sheena K.
Case #: B167626
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/02/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 6/9/04: S123980

The minor was convicted of misdemeanor battery and placed on probation, under specified terms and conditions, including that she not associate with anyone disapproved of by her probation officer, not possess any weapons, and not remain with any person known to be unlawfully armed. Appellant challenged the conditions as vague and overbroad, and contended that they violated her constitutional rights to due process, to travel, and to associate and assemble. The appellate court here agreed that the condition that appellant not associate with anyone disapproved of by the probation officer was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The minor…

View Full Summary
Name: Jones v. Superior Court
Case #: D042335
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/22/2004
Subsequent History: None

The question resolved in this case is whether the reciprocal discovery provisions of the Criminal Discovery statute (Pen. Code, sec. 1054 et seq) apply to a provation revocation hearing, such that a probationer is obligated to provide discovery to the prosecution in such a proceeding. The appellate court here held that there is no such obligation. A probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal trial within the meaning of section 1054.3, and no other statutory authority provides for such…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Juarez
Case #: A101227
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/07/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was sentenced to probation conditioned upon his waiver of all credits for time served. The Supreme Court, in People v. Johnson, upheld the discretion of the trial court to impose such a sentence. However, it did not resolve the issue of when a defendant can challenge a sentence that is combined with the waiver of time-served credits and thereby exceeds the statutory maximum. Here, the appellate court held that requiring appellant to serve the statutory maximum sentence before filing a petition to modify the sentence by reinstating credits would be "procedurally clumsy." Further, Johnson did…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kirby
Case #: H025009
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/08/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to pimp, in violation of Penal Code section 182 and 266h, and conspiracy to pander, in violation of sections 182 and 266i. The trial court followed the probation department's recommendation that probation be granted. The prosecution sought a writ of mandate requiring the trial court to deny probation and impose a state prison term, arguing that appellant was ineligible for probation under section 182, subdivision (a), and 1203.065. The appellate court here disagreed and denied the writ petition. The prosecution's argument is "not supported by a proper construction of the relevant…

View Full Summary