People v. Burgener

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Burgener. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Cal. 5th 461
California Supreme Court·Decided October 13, 2016·No. S179181M·Published

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.

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

People v. Burgener, (Cal. 2016).

People v. Burgener (People v. Burgener) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Engram
240 P.3d 237 (California Supreme Court, 2010)
Loeffler v. Target Corporation
324 P.3d 50 (California Supreme Court, 2014)
People v. Burgener
376 P.3d 659 (California Supreme Court, 2016)