Constitutional Rights

Name: Estrella v. Ollison
Case #: 10-56203
Opinion Date: 12/29/2011
  • Categories: Constitutional Rights, Sentencing

Summary

Trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial when it imposed an upper term sentence based in part on its conclusion defendant was on parole for a violent offense at the time of the crime. A Riverside jury…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ruffin
Case #: F060606
Opinion Date: 11/02/2011
  • Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Equal Protection, Sentencing

Summary

Mandatory sex registration for conviction for Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (e) violates equal protection. Appellant entered into a plea negotiation whereby he pled no contest to Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (e) (oral copulation while confined in state prison),…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hopkins
Case #: H033413
Opinion Date: 05/11/2010
  • Categories: Abatement (Estrada Rossi), Areas Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Credits, Equal Protection, Sentencing

Summary

The trial court should have awarded additional credits under Penal Code section 2900.5.Appellant argued that his continued incarceration after his earliest possible release date was attributable only to the charges in the instant case, so he was entitled to credits…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: F057533
Opinion Date: 03/01/2010
  • Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Credits, Equal Protection, Sentencing

Summary

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 granting more presentence good conduct credit applies prospectively only. Appellant was sentenced in February, 2009, to three years eight months in prison and was awarded presentence credits of 380 days. In January, 2010,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Watson
Case #: D055404
Opinion Date: 02/02/2010
  • Categories: Constitutional Rights, Extraordinary Remedies, Habeas Corpus (State), Sentencing

Summary

Cunningham applies on collateral review of a judgment that became final before Cunningham but after Apprendi because Apprendi, and not Cunningham, established a new rule of law for purposes of retroactivity analysis. Petitioner, who was convicted in 1999,had a pending…

View Full Summary