Legal Opinion

People v. Achrem

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 29, 2013No. B236100PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

YEGAN, J.

Here we hold that treatment at a parole outpatient clinic (POC), as “specified” by the State Department of Mental Health (DMH), satisfies the 90-day treatment criterion for an MDO (mentally disordered offender) commitment. (Pen. Code, §§ 2962, subd. (c), 2964, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2570, subd. (f).)1 Steven Achrem appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court determined he was an MDO.2 Appellant *156claims that he did not receive 90 days of treatment within a year of his parole or release date as required by section 2962, subdivision (c). We affirm and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Younger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. People v. MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Unzueta v. Ocean View School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Lopez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. Castro CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. People v. Linares CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021
  3. People v. M.H.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  4. People v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  5. People v. Torres CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API