From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
People v. Allman
California Court of Appeal
2003 WL 1558186 (2003)
Facts
Allman (plaintiff) had been a fixated female pedophile since he was 10 years old. Allman had multiple convictions for lewd acts with children and went through several rounds of incarceration and institutionalization for treatment of his pedophilia, all followed by probationary periods. During his most recent round of probation, Allman committed multiple sexually violent offenses against girls aged five to 15. Allman pleaded guilty on multiple charges and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital as a sexually violent predator (SVP). While at Atascadero, Allman routinely took anti-androgens, which are testosterone-reducing drugs designed to repress sexual urges. However, Allman refused to participate in cognitive behavioral therapy for his pedophilia. Before serving his full term of incarceration, Allman petitioned for conditional release. Doctors at Atascadero testified that Allman would likely reoffend if conditionally released because he refused to participate in treatment for his pedophilia, refused to acknowledge his pedophilic acts were wrong, and could easily obtain testosterone supplements to counteract the effects of the anti-androgens. The trial court refused Allman’s petition for conditional release, holding that Allman had failed to prove that he would not be a danger to the community if released. Allman appealed, arguing that the anti-androgens made it unlikely he would reoffend.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huffman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.