Legal Opinion

People v. Bishop

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 16, 1992No. H009381PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

Today we decide the issue whether revocation of a conditional sentence disqualifies a defendant from diversion under Penal Code section 1000, subdivision (a)(4). That statute provides that a defendant is ineligible for diversion if his or her record indicates that “probation or parole has ever been revoked without thereafter being completed.” We find that the term “probation” in section 1000, subdivision (a)(4) was intended to include both formal probation and summary probation. Summary probation is now known as “conditional sentence,” 1 but the new language…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. OverstreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  2. People v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho)California Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Valley Circle Estates v. VTN Consolidated, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Sledge v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. OrmistonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  2. Wade v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. People v. GLEECalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. Beckway v. DeShongDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
  5. People v. OrmistonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

4 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