Skip to content
Name: People v. O’Connell
Case #: C040876
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/11/2003
Subsequent History: None

A written report by the director of drug program that appellant had failed to attend any of 20 sessions was admissible at appellant’s probation revocation, despite its hearsay character. The report is akin to the documentary evidence that traditionally has been admissible in probation revocation proceedings. Unlike the use of former testimony, the report was prepared in response to a referral by the court, and specifically on the issue of appellant’s compliance with the program…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Mehdizadeh
Case #: B161117
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 01/29/2003
Subsequent History: Order mod opinion and Rehg. denied 2/27/03. Rev. denied 5/21/03.

Appellant was a probationer covered by the provisions of Proposition 36 when the trial court revoked his probation and incarcerated him pending a formal hearing on first time violations of drug-related conditions of probation. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and OSC was issued. In this opinion, the appellate court held that under the statute, probation cannot be revoked the first time a probationer violates a drug-related probation condition unless there is evidence the probationer poses a danger to society. Probationers subject to Proposition 36 can only have their probation revoked in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Dannenberg
Case #: A095299
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/19/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 1/15/03: S111029

Appellant was sentenced in 1986 to life in prison for the second degree murder of his wife. Appellant had no previous record, his behavior in the institution was commendable, there were no psychiatric factors, and he had viable parole plans. At a 1999 parole hearing, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) denied him a parole date based on the offense itself and the fact that the Board felt appellant needed more therapy. The trial court granted appellant’s writ, ordering the BPT to set a parole date because no evidence supported the denial. The BPT appealed. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re Morrall
Case #: C040322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/23/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/27/02; case below modified at 102 Cal.App.4th 1061a

In 1983 appellant began serving a life term for the second degree murder of his wife. In 1999, the Board of Prison Terms found that Morrall was suitable for parole. Governor Davis reversed the Board’s decision pursuant to his power under Penal Code section 3041.2. In 2001, Morral was again found suitable, and the Governor again reversed the Board’s decision. Here, the appellate court denied appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on the facts of the case, it could not be found that the Governor’s decision had no basis in fact or…

View Full Summary
Name: McQuillion v. Duncan
Case #: 00-55182
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/25/2002
Subsequent History: None

McQuillion was sentenced in 1973 to seven years to life for a conviction of two counts of murder. In 1979 he was found suitable for parole, and a date of October, 1998 was set. In 1994, the Board of Prison Terms set a parole recission hearing to determine whether the date was improvidently granted without consideration of the gravity of the offense, prior criminal history, psychiatric reports, lack of vocational programming, and lack of remorse. Good cause for recission was found, and the date was rescinded. After McQuillion’s state habeas petitions were denied, he filed a…

View Full Summary
Name: Brown v. Superior Court (People)
Case #: D039525
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/19/2002
Subsequent History: None

Periodic polygraph testing as a condition of probation is not per se invalid. However, the court abused its discretion in imposing testing without limiting it to questions relevant to the crime for which Brown was convicted and the completion of his court mandated stalking therapy program, and in ordering Brown to pay for such…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanders
Case #: F033862
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/20/2000
Subsequent History: Review Granted February 28, 2001 (S094088)

Here, because the search of appellant's entire residence was without reasonable cause to believe the areas swept harbored an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene, the court held that the "protective sweep doctrine" did not apply, and the search was therefore invalidated. The court explicitly found that the departmental policy of making a protective sweep of a residence to make sure there is no one else in the residence that could endanger the officers' safety was in "direct contravention" of the limits of the protective sweep adopted in Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Strohman
Case #: B134371
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/23/2000
Subsequent History: Petition for review den. 1/30/01

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying probation because the trial court's finding that appellant had engaged in daily "moral turpitude" while running the chop shop was a reasonable inference from the information available at…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antonio C.
Case #: F034727
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/25/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 12/13/00

The appellate court approved a condition of the juvenile's probation that he not obtain any "new tattoos, brands, burns, piercings or any voluntary scarring." This minor, who had dispositions on three minor offenses, also had three tattoos on his body. He was associated with, but not a member of a gang, the Surenos. On appeal, the minor challenged the tattooing prohibition on First Amendment grounds that the condition was not limited to gang tattoos. The appellate court addressed the contention even though there had not been an objection below. The juvenile court had simply ignored…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wutzke
Case #: S092179
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/12/2002
Subsequent History: None

A defendant who molested the granddaughters of the woman with whom he had lived for many years was not eligible for probation as a "relative" under Penal Code section 1203.066, subdivision (c)(1) (and thus avoid a mandatory life term under the One Strike Law (Pen. Code, sec. 667.61). He had no blood, legal, or residential connection with the…

View Full Summary