Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Challenge to the Validity of State Controller's Auditing Rules, and Criminal Cases

By FindLaw Staff on September 22, 2010 12:09 PM

People v. Torres, G042010, concerned a challenge to a defendant's convictions for various drug-related offenses and other crimes.  In reversing, the court remanded the case in holding tht defendant is entitled to separate review of the denials of his motion to set aside and his motion to suppress.  The court held that the inventory search was unlawful because the prosecution did not show the police reasonably impounded defendant's truck pursuant to their community caretaking function, but rather, the record shows that this was a pretextual inventory search conducted as a ruse for a criminal investigation.

 

People v. Sokolsky, B212437, concerned a defendant's challenge to a jury verdict adjudicating him a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator's Act.  In affirming, the court held that there is no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal from an SVPA commitment and summary denial of defendant's application was not an abuse of discretion.

Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Chiang, C061696, involved certain school districts' petitions for writ of mandate and complaints for declaratory relief, challenging the validity of two auditing rules used by defendant State Controller's Office in reducing state-mandate claims for employee salary and benefit costs submitted from the school districts and community college districts.

In reversing in part, the court overturned the Controller's audits for the four programs at issue during the period at issue to the extent they were based on the Contemporaneous Source Document Rule (CSDR), as this rule was an invalid underground regulation under the state Administrative Procedure Act.  However, the court affirmed in part in holding that, the Health Fee Rule, which the Controller used to reduce reimbursement claims for state-mandated health services provided by the plaintiff community college districts pursuant to the Health Fee Elimination Program, is valid.

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard

Find a Lawyer

More Options