Legal Opinion

People v. Melton

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 1990No. E005998PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THE COURT. *

These appeals by codefendants Ronald David Melton and Sheri McAllister present but a single question for determination: the effect of the trial court’s failure to advise them, at the time they pleaded guilty, that such a plea would subject them to a virtually mandatory restitution fine. We determine that defendants are entitled to no relief and affirm the judgment.

Due to the nature of the issue presented, no detailed recitation of the facts is required. It suffices to say that each defendant pleaded guilty to a variety of charges arising out of a series of armed robberies;…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Bunnell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Nardell U. Carter v. Daniel McCarthy Midge Carroll, John K. Van De KampCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  4. In Re CarabesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. People v. GauldenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. McKinnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. People v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. People v. McClellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. People v. McMahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. People v. EastmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993

10 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