People v. Moret
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
KLINE, P. J., Dissenting.
The majority finds imposition of the challenged condition was not an abuse of discretion because appellant “specifically agreed [to the condition] at the December 17[, 2008] sentencing hearing” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 844), and because appellant had the burden of proving his eligibility to use medical marijuana and failed to sustain it (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 848-850). I respectfully disagree.
A sentencing judge has no authority to impose an unlawful condition of probation simply by extracting an “agreement” to it from the defendant. What makes this case unusual is…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- People v. LentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- People v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. CarbajalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. PanizzonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.