I haven't seen an amended opinion that's this type of terse:
"It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 15, 2016, be
modified as follows:
On page 14, third line of the first full paragraph, after the sentence ending
“with the local chief of police,” add as footnote 8 the following footnote:
In a petition for rehearing, the People withdrew their concession on
this issue and argued, based on In re Guiomar (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 265,
and In re C.H. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1139, review granted November 16,
2016, S237762, that defendant is required to register. We find those cases
to be inapt."
Usually if you amend an opinion to distinguish a case or two, you say more than just that you find them inapt, without explaining why they're so-not-apt.
But apparently Justice Ikola thinks that simply calling them inapt is sufficient here.
