Legal Opinion

Moore v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 22, 2004No. C044242PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

Petitioner Paul Roger Moore seeks a writ of mandate, contending he is eligible for probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. (Pen. Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1, 3063.1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11999.4 et seq.)1 Proposition 36 requires the court to grant probation and drug treatment to any defendant convicted of a nonviolent drug possession offense and prohibits incarceration as a condition of probation. (§ 1210.1, subd. (a).)

However, as relevant here, Proposition 36 shall not apply to a defendant previously convicted of a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Ginns v. SavageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Horwich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Pacific Legal Foundation v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Robbins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Moore v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API