Legal Opinion

People v. Soria

California Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 2010No. S164796PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

The Penal Code requires the imposition of a restitution fine “[i]n every case where a person is convicted of a crime.” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).) A suspended parole revocation restitution fine is also mandatory “[i]n every case where . . . [the] sentence includes a period of parole.” (§ 1202.45.) Here, the Court of Appeal held that when several separately filed cases are disposed of at a single hearing under a plea bargain, the cases have been “effectively consolidated” and only one set of fines may be imposed under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

In…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. People v. GardeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. People v. GiordanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. People v. AveryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. People v. OatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. People v. FarellCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. People v. CornettCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  3. People v. VillalobosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  4. People v. SencionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. People v. M.M.California Supreme Court · 2012

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API