The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
S029551•People v. Johnson (Joe Edward), [Automatic Appeal]
S029551Supreme Court of CaliforniaFeb 11, 2020
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.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.