People v. SUPERIOR COURT (HENKEL)
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HAERLE, J.
I. Introduction
The People challenge the trial court’s order granting probation and imposing a drug treatment requirement on real party in interest Robert Otto Henkel. They argue that Henkel is not eligible for probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, § 1210 et seq.) 1 because he has a prior strike (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(18)) and, seven months before committing the drug possession offense in this matter, was convicted of committing another felony. We agree and, accordingly, grant the petition for a writ of mandate.
II.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. RizoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Legislature v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Morse v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Robinson v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. FielderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- In Re OgeaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. GlasperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.