Court Opinion

ID: 9724151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:47:01.282356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:56.848516
License: Public Domain

SIMS, Acting P. J.
By petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs assert that this court has overlooked its responsibility to reaffirm the independent nature of the California Constitution and its responsibility to separately define and protect the rights of California citizens under those provisions, despite conflicting decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the federal Constitution. (See People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101, 114-115 [127 Cal.Rptr. 360, 545 P.2d 272]; People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943, 951, fn. 4 [123 Cal.Rptr. 297, 538 P.2d 753]; and People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 548, 552 [119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099].) In the exercise of independent judgment and for the reasons set forth in the opinion we have no reason to apply standards of equal protection other than enumerated in this case. Moreover by any standard the alleged favoritism in 4 counties cannot be translated into an authorized program in 54 other counties.