Legal Opinion
People v. Poulsom
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 31, 2013No. D060779PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*507Opinion
HUFFMAN, J.
In 2007, a jury found that Michael Poulsom did not qualify as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act or SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §6600 et seq.) After two subsequent parole violations, the San Diego County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that Poulsom was an SVP under the Act. The jury found the petition’s allegations true and the trial court ordered Poulsom committed to Coalinga State Hospital for an indefinite term. Poulsom timely appealed the order.
Poulsom raises multiple issues on appeal. He…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- People v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. Martinez-SalazarSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Josephine G. v. Charles G. CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2020
- People v. Aguilar CA5California Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. Clark CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020
- People v. Gonzales CA6California Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. Karl CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.