Legal Opinion

People v. Urke

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 19, 2011No. C063169PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

Following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 288, defendant Matthew David Urke was placed on probation under various terms and conditions, including one which prohibited him from being “in the presence of any minor under the age of 18 without a responsible adult present that has been previously approved by [defendant’s] probation officer, except [his] own siblings.”1 Following defendant’s fourth probation violation, three of which involved being in the presence of minors, defendant’s grant of probation was revoked, and he was committed to state prison for six…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. People v. LentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. People Ex Rel. Gallo v. AcunaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. GuardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. People v. MesaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. People v. MartinezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. People v. HolmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. The People v. GuillenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. ButcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. People v. GonzalezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

42 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