Skip to content
Name: Hoffman v. Arave
Case #: 99-99002
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/03/2001
Subsequent History: None

Because Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. — [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348], did not overrule Walton v. Arizona (1990) 497 U.S. 639, it was not error for the district judge, rather than the jury, to determine the aggravating circumstances in a capital case. A presentence interview in a capital case is a "critical stage" for Sixth Amendment purposes, to which the right to counsel attaches, and this is not a new rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288. The Court of Appeals could not determine, on this record, whether the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stevens
Case #: C036593
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/05/2001
Subsequent History: Rehearing Granted June 25, 2001. Opinion on Rehearing September 5, 2001

The Butte County Superior Court ordered defendant, at sentencing on an offense committed in Butte County while on parole from Kern County, to report to the Kern County parole office upon his release from prison. The appellate court held this was error, since the applicable statutes give this authority to the parole board and not the sentencing court where the defendant does not have enough credit to satisfy the term…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Tapia
Case #: B146305
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/14/2001
Subsequent History: Rehearing Denied September 5, 2001. Review Denied December 12, 2001

Appellant Tapia was sentenced to three years probation in July of 1996. As a condition of probation, he was ordered not to re-enter the country illegally, and if he did return, to report to probation within 24 hours of his return and present documentation. Later that year, he was deported to Mexico. In September, 2000, Tapia returned to California and was arrested. At a probation violation hearing, his probation was revoked and reinstated until 2003. Here, the appellate court reversed. The trial court had no jurisdiction to extend the term of probation. The…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Williams
Case #: B286241
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/20/2018

A youth offender granted parole under Penal Code section 3051 is not required to serve a consecutive sentence for an in-prison offense committed after age 25. In 1991, at age 21, Williams was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to 28 years to life. At age 26, he committed an in-prison battery, for which he was sentenced to an additional 8-year consecutive sentence. Williams was found suitable for parole in 2016, but the state held him to serve additional time for the in-prison offense. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing…

View Full Summary