Legal Opinion

People v. C.H.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 30, 2016No. A146120PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SIGGINS, J.

—C.H. argues that following the reduction of his 2011 felony to a misdemeanor, the trial court was obligated to expunge a DNA sample he originally provided pursuant to Penal Code section 296.1. His argument is premised upon his interpretation of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by the voters in 2014. Proposition 47 permitted C.H. to petition the court to redesignate his felony as a misdemeanor, and provides that once redesignated his crime is a misdemeanor “for all purposes.” (§ 1170.18, subdivision (k).) Because misdemeanants are not required…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. People v. GilbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. RiveraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. People v. BanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)California Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. C.B. (In Re C.B.)California Supreme Court · 2018
  2. People v. Laird, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. People v. PinonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. Harris, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  5. People v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

2 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