Legal Opinion

In Re Dikes

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 17, 2004No. A104121PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RIVERA, J.

After a prison disciplinary hearing, Jayson Wayne Dikes was found to have possessed a controlled substance in violation of prison regulations, based on a positive urinalysis test. He petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the chug test as insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of possession. The court agreed and granted the petition, directing that the disciplinary finding be set aside and ordering the restoration of good time credits. The warden appeals, contending that the drug test satisfied the “some evidence” standard of proof required…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. People v. MoralesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  4. People v. PreslieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  5. Aguilar v. Association for Retarded CitizensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re ZepedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. (HC) Griffin v. FoulkDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
  3. People v. AparicioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. People v. AparicioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. People v. AparicioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API