People v. Santibanez
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FRANSON, J.
Appellant appeals his conviction following a plea of nolo contendere to violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (e) — participating in an act of oral copulation while confined in the Kern County jail. Appellant’s sole contention is that the statute is unconstitutional in that it violates his fundamental right of sexual privacy, denies him equal protection of the law, and imposes cruel and unusual punishment. For the reasons to be explained, we hold that the statute withstands these constitutional challenges.
Appellant argues that the constitutional right to privacy…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Pell v. ProcunierSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. FraizeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- People v. RodriguezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- People v. CortezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- People v. RuffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- People v. WestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.