Legal Opinion
People v. Fixler
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 17, 1976No. Crim. 27157PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
COMPTON, J.
In a nonjury trial defendants Fixler and Utterback were convicted of conspiring to violate Penal Code section 266i (pandering). In addition, Fixler was convicted of two substantive counts of pandering and Utterback was convicted of one substantive count of pandering. They appeal from the judgment of conviction.
There is little dispute as to the facts underlying the judgment. Utterback was one of several photographers employed by American Art Enterprises, a concern that publishes various magazines devoted to the depiction of sexual activity. Fixler was a “photo editor” for…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- People v. MontgomeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Barrows v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- People Ex Rel. Hicks v. Sarong GalsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- People v. CourtneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Almodovar v. ReinerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- People v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- People v. PattonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1977
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.