Legal Opinion

People v. Dobson

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 1, 2016No. F069588PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Steven Jay Dobson contends Penal Code section 1170.126 1 should be “interpreted” to permit people found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital (NGI committees) 2 to petition for recalculation of their maximum term of confinement. He also asserts that a contrary interpretation would violate equal protection principles. We reject his arguments and affirm.

FACTS

“In 1998, appellant Steven Jay Dobson pleaded guilty to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted four prior strike convictions. He also…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. People v. YearwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. K.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. People v. Harris, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. In re Allen A. CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. BarnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
  5. People v. BarnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024

6 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