Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Tucker

California Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1971No. Crim. 13489Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

TOBRINER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the denial of the writ of habeas corpus in the present case. From the evidence and findings of this court’s referee I do not question that petitioner possessed a revolver while on parole, that he voluntarily admitted orally and in writing to possession of this weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12021, that *185the Adult Authority could properly consider petitioner’s admission in revoking his parole (In re Martinez (1970) 1 Cal.3d 641, 650 [83 Cal. Rptr. 382, 463 P.2d 734]), and that the Adult Authority was justified in revoking parole…

2Cases cited147 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

142 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