§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ADELMANN

Respondent’s Answer to Petition for Review

10 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Superior Court (Kaulick)

    215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 445 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding People have due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard on issue of danger to public at such hearing

  2. In re Reeves

    35 Cal.4th 765 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 174 times
    Noting " period of presentence confinement is indivisibly attributed to all of the offenses with which the prisoner is charged and of which he is eventually convicted"; holding, under § 2933.1(c), courts cannot "parse such a single, unitary period of presentence confinement into hypothetical overlapping terms eligible to earn credit at different rates"

  3. Young v. Gannon

    97 Cal.App.4th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 80 times

    B146236 Filed February 27, 2002; Certified for Publication March 28, 2002 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS061675, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed. Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and Dennis F. Moss for Plaintiff and Appellant. John M. Rea, Chief Counsel, Vanessa L. Holton, Assistant Chief Counsel, and Frank Nelson Adkins and Sarah L. Cohen, Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent and Real Part in Interest. SPENCER, P.J. INTRODUCTION John D. Young appeals from a

  4. In re Derrick B.

    39 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 54 times
    Distinguishing Jovan B. because no such broader context was present

  5. Hilton v. Superior Court (People)

    239 Cal.App.4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 20 times
    In Hilton, the trial court ordered victim restitution as a condition of probation, with the amount to be determined at a restitution hearing.

  6. People v. Curry

    1 Cal.App.5th 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Curry (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1073, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 (review granted Nov. 9, 2016, S237037) (Curry), the defendant pled no contest to second degree burglary in Napa County.

  7. People v. Adelmann

    2 Cal.App.5th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Adelmann (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1188, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 201, review granted November 9, 2016, S237602 (Adelmann), the court considered a transfer statute pertaining to adult probationers, Penal Code section 1203.9, which provides for transfer to the superior court for the county in which the probationer takes up permanent residence.

  8. People v. Chenze

    97 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 521, 525 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362] (Chenze), the defendant contended that he was improperly charged and convicted under section 243.1 because that provision had been "impliedly repealed" when the Legislature amended section 243 to include references to custodial officers.

  9. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  10. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)