Skip to content
Name: People v. Washington
Case #: B152891
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/25/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/2/02.

Under Penal Code section 1203.1b, subdivision (a), a probationer who has been extradited following absconding from supervision may be order to pay the costs of extradition as a "reasonable cost of any probation supervision."…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Neild
Case #: D038132
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/01/2002
Subsequent History: Order mod opn. & rehg. denied 7/29/02. Rev. denied 9/18/02.

Appellant was on felony probation when he was charged with battery inflicting serious bodily injury. He entered a negotiated plea to the offense and admitted committing the offense while on felony probation in violation of Penal Code section 1203, subd.(k). The court revoked his probation and found that section 1203, subd.(k) prohibited it from granting probation in the second offense. Appellate counsel submitted a Wende brief, and the appellate court asked for supplemental briefing on whether the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to strike the section 1203, subd. (k) finding. In its opinion, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wutzke
Case #: D033221
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/01/2000
Subsequent History: Review granted 12/20/00 (S092179)

Review granted on this case. Remand for resentencing was required where the trial court was under the mistaken belief that appellant was ineligible for probation because he was not a "relative" as described by Penal Code Section 1203.066. A jury convicted Wutzke of four violations of section 288, subdivision (a), against more than one victim. He was therefore ineligible for probation under section 1203.066 unless he was a parent or relative who lived in the household. Although Wutzke was not related by blood to the victims, he was the functional equivalent of their grandfather, and had…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bruce G.
Case #: C034403
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/24/2002
Subsequent History: None

The trial court erred in concluding that defendant was ineligible for probation under Penal Code section 1203.066 where the allegation of substantial sexual conduct was neither pleaded nor proved as required by the statute.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brown
Case #: D036935
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/27/2002
Subsequent History: None

The 1994 amendments to Penal Code section 3041.5, permitting deferral of a parole hearing for five years applied to consideration of defendant’s parole for a 1986 murder. The amendment changed only the administrative method of setting a parole…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Knights
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/02/2000
Subsequent History: None

An order suppressing the evidence seized during a warrantless probation search was affirmed where the probation was completely unrelated to the investigative search on an entirely different offense. Appellant was on probation, with a search condition, for a misdemeanor drug offense. Officers decided to search his home when they were investigating an arson offense, and observed related evidence in appellant's vehicle. The evidence was properly suppressed by the trial court. Even when a probationer has consented to searches of his home as a condition of probation, those searches must be conducted for probation purposes and not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Downey
Case #: B136294
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/02/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/21/00

Remand was required where the court erroneously believed that it had to sentence appellant on his conviction for felony possession of cocaine consecutive to his misdemeanor conviction. Because the record clearly demonstrates that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion because of its erroneous interpretation of the law, remand was required. Furthermore, because the trial court never indicated whether the misdemeanor sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively to each other, they must be deemed concurrent under Penal Code section 669. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to order a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Rosenkrantz
Case #: B151016
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/18/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 5/1/02.

The governor’s parole review decisions are judicially reviewable. They must be based on the same record before the parole board and upon the same factors considered by the board, and based upon some…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Alvarea
Case #: F036164
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/18/2001
Subsequent History: None

Ineligibility for probation under Penal Code section 1203, subdivision(e)(2) for use of a deadly weapon requires that the defendant have personally used the deadly…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ramirez
Case #: A092699
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/12/2001
Subsequent History: None

The court ordered the parole board to hold another parole suitability hearing for the defendant in this highly fact specific case. The court ordered the parole board to use the following guidelines: the gravity and the public safety implications of Ramirez’s offenses as they compare with other similar offenses and in light of the terms for such offenses as set by the Legislature. The Board was also ordered to consider these factors as favoring the application for a parole date: Ramirez’s psychological profile (unless a new one indicates otherwise), his work history, education, and volunteer work in his…

View Full Summary