Legal Opinion

People v. Kilborn

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 19, 1996No. B094396PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, Acting P. J.

James Kilborn, the appellant, attacks the three strikes sentencing law because it allows a recidivist felon whose previous crime was a serious or violent felony but who is now convicted of a less heinous felony, to be sentenced to double the principal term he or she otherwise would have received. The system is irrational, he argues, when compared to a sentence imposed on a felon whose sequence of crime is reversed (that is, a felon who committed a felony not classified as serious or violent, followed by one that is). That person does not receive a doubled principal…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Truax v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. McLaughlin v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. In Re Marilyn HCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. McDonald v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1901

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Pitts v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. People v. PecciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. People v. ButlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of West HollywoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. People v. VeraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

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