Legal Opinion
People v. Alvas
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 6, 1990No. C005511PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EVANS, J.
Following a trial by court, defendant was found to be mentally retarded and a danger to himself or others (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6500) 1 and was involuntarily committed to the Stockton Developmental Center for one year.
On appeal defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because (1) the record fails to show an advisement and waiver of the right to a jury trial on the issues of dangerousness and retardation, and (2) section 6500 is unconstitutionally vague for failure to define “dangerousness” as it is used in that section. 2
Conceding that defendant’s first contention has…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- People v. RowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- People v. CuevasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. BailieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. WilkinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.