Skip to content
Name: People v. Goldberg
Case #: A097650
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/31/2003
Subsequent History: none
Summary

A defendant convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled substance is ineligible for drug treatment under Proposition 36. Here, appellant pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11379, subd. (a)) and driving under the influence of a controlled substance (Veh. Code, sec. 12500, subd. (b)). Sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. Later his probation was revoked because he twice tested positive for methamphetamine and he failed to report to his probation officer. The trial court found him ineligible for Prop 36 treatment (Pen. Code, sec. 1210.1) because his conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance was in the same proceeding as his conviction for the nonviolent drug possession offense. (See sec. 1210.1, subd. (b).) Here the Court of Appeal agreed that Prop 36 does not apply to “a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs or any felony.” (Quoting sec. 1201.1, subd. (b)(2).) The purpose of Prop 36 is to divert into treatment only those people whose only offenses were nonviolent drug possession offenses. Appellant was not entitled to Prop 36 treatment because while driving under the influence, even of methamphetamine, may involve the simple possession or use of drugs, it also involves the additional act of driving which creates a danger to the public not related to the use of drugs within the meaning of the Prop 36 statute.