Legal Opinion
People v. Parham
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 9, 2003No. B160306PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
The trial court finds that defendant was not a mentally disordered offender (MDO) at the time he committed a criminal offense. The judgment states that defendant was not an MDO at the time of his prior hearing before the Board of Prison Terms (BPT). Here we hold res judicata bars the prosecution from retrying defendant as an MDO based on the same qualifying offense.
Steven Parham appeals the judgment committing him to the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) as an MDO. (Pen. Code, § 2962.) We reverse.
FACTS
In 1997 Parham threatened to kill his brother and mother. He…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1962
- Castillo v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- People v. FrancisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. CrivelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- People v. HannibalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. Austin, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- People v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. Ramirez CA1/4California Court of Appeal · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.