Legal Opinion
People v. Amor
California Supreme Court
Decided July 9, 1974No. Crim. 17473PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McCOMB, J.
Defendant appeals from an order requiring her to pay the County of Los Angeles the sum of $50 for services of counsel appointed to represent her in a criminal prosecution.
Facts: Defendant was charged with the crime of felony hit and run, in violation of section 20001 of the Vehicle Code. On July 19, 1972, the public defender was appointed to represent her, and she at that time signed an acknowledgment that she had received a written “Notice of Responsibility for Payment of Appointed Counsel and Right to Hearing (987.8 Penal Code of California).”
Defendant pleaded not guilty;…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Rinaldi v. YeagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. BeagleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Kopp v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. SkinnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Curry v. WilsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
- People v. FloresCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- People v. EngramCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.