Legal Opinion

In Re LeDay

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 27, 1985No. A027744PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HANING, J.

Petitioner Maurice LeDay seeks a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the extension of his recommitment to prison as a parole violator pursuant to Penal Code section 3057, subdivision (c), was an invalid ex post facto punishment.

Until January 1, 1984, subdivision (a) of section 3057 provided without additional qualification that “[c]onfinement pursuant to a revocation of parole in the absence of a new conviction and commitment to prison under other provisions of law, shall not exceed twelve months.” Effective on that date subdivision (c) was added to section 3057, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. In Re William M.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. In Re RamirezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. John L. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. People v. CallejasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. In Re NolascoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. People v. BluntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Wishteyah v. Kansas Parole BoardCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1992

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