Legal Opinion

People v. Wilen

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 25, 2008No. A115861PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RICHMAN, J.

This appeal is by a criminal defendant from a postjudgment order directing him to pay $2,631.04. The amount is small, and the odds of collecting it problematic. But the two issues raised by the appeal are, on the surface, as important as any we can confront: (1) Does a defendant who has pleaded guilty to controlled substance crimes and who is subject of a petition for recovery of hazardous cleanup expenses have a right under Health and Safety Code section 11470.2 to have liability for those expenses decided by a jury? and (2) Does the defendant have a right to be present at…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. People v. DoradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. ChappeloneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. People v. Rocha, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. People v. FedalizoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. DiSandroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. State Water ResourcesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

8 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