Legal Opinion

People v. Floyd

California Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 2003No. S105225PublishedCited by 115 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

In this case we must decide whether Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to the act’s effective date of July 1, 2001, but whose judgments were not yet final as of that date. We conclude that the act’s saving clause—which states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively” (Prop. 36, § 8, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) (Proposition 36), reprinted at 51 West’s Ann. Pen. Code…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. People v. ArandaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Cooley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  5. People v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by115 opinions

  1. People v. Martinez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. People v. YearwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. People v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. People v. Anthony, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. People v. MoralesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016

110 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