- People v. Lindsey
About 10 years after defendant had been convicted of armed robbery, the superior court issued a writ of habeas corpus on the ground his confession was received in evidence in violation of the U.S. Constitution and a US Supreme Court case which held unconstitutional a sister state's practice whereby a confession was submitted to a jury for its determination of voluntariness without having the trial judge first satisfy himself that it was voluntary. - Miller v. Obledo
An optometrist sought review of a decision of the State Department of Health suspending him from participating in the Medi-Cal program, for one year. The optometrist contended that a state investigator's inspection of his Medi-Cal records pursuant to State law was invalid in that the investigator had not obtained a subpoena duces tecum. The Superior Court denied relief. - Thole v. Structural Pest Control Bd. of Dept. of Consumer Affairs
In disciplinary proceedings before the Structural Pest Control Board, a pest control operator had his license suspended for various violations including gross negligence. He claimed the term "gross negligence" was vague. The court held against the pest control operator ruling the term was not vague; additionally, the fact he eventually completed the work was no defense, stating that the Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge, and does not make restitution a defense. - People v. Wax
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for selling narcotics. Subsequently, he filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have the allegation of a prior conviction, found to be true at the time of the trial, stricken from the record. The court denied the writ and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the narcotic conviction, holding that failure to obtain and to consider an up-to-date probation report or a report from the Director of Corrections before denying the writ was reversible error. The court reconsidered the prior narcotic drug conviction. - People v. Williams
In a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of forgery in violation of Pen. Code, § 470. Representing himself as the payee thereof, defendant attempted to deposit and draw on two checks, which checks he knew to have been stolen from the United States mails. Defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced under a federal statute for possession of the checks as stolen mail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court held that forgery and possession of stolen mail were separate and distinct offenses, founded on different acts, so that prosecution for the forgery violation was not barred. The court also held that Pen. Code, § 654, prohibiting double punishment for an act made punishable in different ways by different sections of the Penal Code, did not apply to prohibit punishment for the state forgery offense after imposition of punishment for the federal crime.
San Diego Injury Lawyer - Personal Injury Attorney San Diego - San Diego Wrongful Death Attorney
