Legal Opinion

People v. Hinkel

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 11, 2005No. C046395PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HULL, J.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Bruce Hinkel pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), being under the influence of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and driving an unregistered vehicle (Veh. Code, § 4000, subd. (a)). The court deferred entry of judgment and ordered defendant to participate in a drug treatment program. (Pen. Code, § 1000 et seq.; all unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.) After defendant’s probation officer filed a notice of unsatisfactory diversion and moved…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. RodriguesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Shoemaker v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. People v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Kertesz v. OstrovskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. ZC Real State Tax Solutions Ltd. v. FordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. People v. BeatyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. People v. StrongAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2006
  5. People v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API