In re Pratt

California Supreme Court

In re Pratt

5 Cal. 3d 46

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 28, 1971

DocketCrim. No. 14083

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cal. 3d 46 (In re Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Pratt, 5 Cal. 3d 46 (Cal. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

We treat the petition in the above-entitled proceeding as an application to recall the remittitur in People v. Pratt, 2 Crim. 9718. The proceeding is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, with directions to recall its remittitur, vacate its judgment to the .extent it affirms the judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. 238805, and redetermine petitioner’s appeal therein in light of People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225], People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], and People v. Timmons, 4 Cal.3d 411 [93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648]. To facilitate the proper disposition of the appeal we vacate so much of our order in In re Pratt, 66 Cal.2d 154 [56 Cal.Rptr. 895, 424 P.2d 335], as sets aside petitioner’s robbery sentence.

Sullivan, J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

THE COURT.

We treat the petition in the above-entitled proceeding as an application to recall the remittitur in People v. Pratt, 2 Crim. 9718. The proceeding is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, with directions to recall its remittitur, vacate its judgment to the .extent it affirms the judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. 238805, and redetermine petitioner’s appeal therein in light of People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225], People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633], and People v. Timmons, 4 Cal.3d 411 [93 Cal.Rptr. 736, 482 P.2d 648]. To facilitate the proper disposition of the appeal we vacate so much of our order in In re Pratt, 66 Cal.2d 154 [56 Cal.Rptr. 895, 424 P.2d 335], as sets aside petitioner’s robbery sentence.

Sullivan, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 3d 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pratt-cal-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack