Legal Opinion

People v. Mutter

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 11, 2016No. E064355PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MILLER, J.—

The trial court denied the Proposition 47 petition for resen-tencing of defendant and appellant James Carl Mutter. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) Defendant contends the trial court erred because the crime for which he sought resentencing—possession or receipt of counterfeit currency (§ 475, subd. (a))—is a misdemeanor after the passage of Proposition 47. The denial of the petition is reversed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was charged with two offenses, both alleged to have occurred on or about November 30, 2013: (1) forgery, in that defendant willfully and unlawfully…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. FloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. People v. Sherow CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. People v. BricenoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. People v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. People v. BedilionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. AbrahamianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  2. People v. Aguirre, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. People v. AguirreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API