Blakely v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
IKOLA, J.
Petitioner Felicia Blakely challenges the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) that she is a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (See Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.; MDO Act.) She contends California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) violated the mandatory deadline for MDO evaluations and certification: i.e., “[p]rior to release on parole . . . .” (§ 2962, subd. (d)(1).)
We agree. Parallel language in the MDO Act—“ ‘Prior to the termination of a commitment’ ”—sets a mandatory deadline for filing recommitment petitions. (People v. Allen (2007) 42…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Steketee v. Lintz, Williams & RothbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Stillwell v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- People v. GregersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- People v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- People v. GerardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- People v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.