People v. Rouse
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRIMES, J.
— We are asked to consider whether defendant and appellant Gary Lamont Rouse was denied a right to counsel at the resentencing hearing held on his petition brought pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 (hereafter section 1170.18). Section 1170.18 was enacted as part of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, adopted by California voters in November 2014 as Proposition 47 (Proposition 47). Proposition 47 reclassified certain drug- and theft-related offenses that were felonies or “wobblers” as misdemeanors, and provided a resentencing process for individuals who would have…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mempa v. RhaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
- People v. Fryhaat, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- People v. FedalizoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. Rodriguez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- In re GuiomarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.