Legal Opinion

People v. Andreotti

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 29, 2001No. C034072PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORRISON, J.

May a trial court defer entry of judgment for a child molester, absent the People’s consent? No. Contrary to defendant’s view, a statute precluding judges from doing so does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

The People charged defendant with eight counts of child molestation, alleging substantial sexual conduct as to one count. (Pen. Code, §§288, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (a)(8); further section references are to this code.) He pleaded not guilty and asked for deferred entry of judgment, which the *1266People opposed. The trial court found defendant was eligible for…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
  2. People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
  3. People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. People v. BirksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. People v. OrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.Nevada Supreme Court · 2018
  2. In re I.S.Nevada Supreme Court · 2024
  3. People v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. People v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
  5. People v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024

3 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