Prop 36 case. Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine in return for probation and 90 days in the county jail. He executed a Cruz waiver with the understanding that he could be sentenced to the maximum term for failing to appear or committing a new offense. Prior to his sentencing, he was arrested for possession of paraphernalia, a violation of the Cruz waiver. On November 7, 2000, the voters passed Proposition 36. Appellant admitted the Cruz violation and was sentenced to three years in state prison on November 27, 2000. Here, the appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that appellant was not entitled to the benefits of Proposition 36, which clearly provides for a July 1, 2001 effective date and prospective application of its sentencing provisions. To invoke Proposition 36 to grant appellant drug treatment would be tantamount to giving the statute retroactive effect.