People v. Johnson
- 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 2/11/20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOE EDWARD JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
S029551
Sacramento County Superior Court 58961
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
THE COURT:
The majority opinion in this case, filed on November 25, 2019, and appearing at 8 Cal.5th 475, is modified as follows: 1. The first sentence of the third full paragraph on page 494 presently reads: “At a pretrial hearing on June 12, trial counsel indicated that they were ready to proceed with trial as scheduled.” This sentence is modified to read as follows:
At a discovery sanctions hearing on June 12, the court confirmed the scheduled June 22 trial date, and counsel for both parties indicated that they anticipated proceeding with pretrial motions on that date. 2. The last sentence of the second full paragraph on page 501 presently reads: “Meanwhile, trial counsel advised the court on June 12 that they were ready to proceed with trial as scheduled.” This sentence is modified to read as follows:
Meanwhile, trial counsel advised the court on June 12 that they intended to adhere to the existing trial schedule.
This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Johnson S029551 · 2019-11-25