People v. Burgener
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 10/12/16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S179181 v. ) ) Riverside County MICHAEL RAY BURGENER, ) Super. Ct. No. CR 18088 ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ____________________________________)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING THE COURT:
The opinion in this case, filed on August 11, 2016, and appearing at 1 Cal.5th 461, is modified as follows: The citation following the first sentence of the final paragraph on page 474 of 1 Cal.5th, which currently reads “(See People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1161 [116 Cal.Rptr.3d 762, 240 P.3d 237] [„a statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question‟].)” is replaced with the following: (See Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, 1102 [“we avoid resolving constitutional questions if the issue may be resolved on narrower grounds”].) This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Burgener S179181 · 2016-08-11
- Loeffler v. Target Corporation S173972 · 2014-05-01
- People v. Engram S176983 · 2010-10-25