The trial court erred in revoking Proposition 36 probation on a first petition to revoke probation. Enriquez was placed on Proposition 36 probation following a conviction for drug offenses. His probation officer filed three petitions to revoke probation based on Enriquez’s failure to provide proof of attendance at NA meetings, failure to appear at a hearing, and a subsequent arrest for possession. The trial court revoked probation and Enriquez was sentenced to state prison. On appeal, Enriquez argued that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the three violations were in fact one violation. Although the appellate court disagreed with Enriquez’s assertion, it also disagreed with respondent’s position that revocation was justified because there was more than one violation. The court reversed, finding that what is important is not how many violations, but how many separate noticed motions to revoke were properly before the court. Under Proposition 36, Enriquez was entitled to three distinct probationary periods before he lost his eligibility. Because of the timing of the filing of the three petitions, the lack of evidence of when Enriquez received notice of them, and the conduct on which they were based, the three revocation petitions that were before the trial court could only be treated as one petition. Under People v. Hazle, a third petition to revoke probation under Proposition 36 for drug related reasons may not be treated as a separate noticed motion to revoke if the defendant was not on notice of the second petition at the time the conduct occurred. Likewise, a second petition may not be treated as a separate noticed motion to revoke if the defendant was not on notice of the first petition at the time of the conduct underlying the second petition. Here, both situations existed, and therefore the trial court erred in revoking the Proposition 36 probation.