Legal Opinion

People v. Sheek

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 14, 2004No. E034840PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.

The People contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s Penal Code 1 section 2966, subdivision (b), petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence without conducting a jury trial and erred as a matter of law in granting the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed a petition under section 2966, subdivision (b) challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ certification that he met all six criteria for commitment for treatment as a condition of parole under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDO Act, § 2960 et seq.).…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  3. People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti)California Supreme Court · 2002
  4. People v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1987

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. People v. Bendovid, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. May v. HunterDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2006
  4. People v. BendovidCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  5. People v. BrandonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

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