Legal Opinion

Blakely v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 2010No. G042107PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Steketee v. Lintz, Williams & RothbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  3. People v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Stillwell v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. People v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  2. People v. GregersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. People v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. People v. GerardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. People v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

3 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