Skip to content
Name: People v. Muldrow
Case #: F048923
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/14/2006

Muldrow was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, and admitted four prior prison terms. He was sentenced to state prison for seven years. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred in finding that a parole hold and the expectation that he would return to prison for a parole violation made him ineligible for Prop 36 drug treatment (Penal Code section 1210.1). The appellate court agreed and vacated the sentence. A defendant is unamenable for drug treatment if he is unavailable to participate due to incarceration. Here, it was not certain that Muldrow would be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Budwiser
Case #: C049566
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/07/2006

The defendant's due process rights were not violated where the court held a single hearing on two petitions to revoke probation. The defendant, who had been placed on probation under Proposition 36, argued on appeal that his statutory and constitutional rights were violated when the trial court considered two petitions, filed on March 4 and March 7, 2005, in a single revocation proceeding. One of the petitions concerned a first drug-related probation violation, under Penal Code section 1210.1(e)(3)(A), and the other concerned a subsequent drug-related violation, under section 1210.1(e)(3)(B). The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Moniz
Case #: C048738
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/06/2006

The defendant was not eligible for Proposition 36 probation where his conviction for concealment of evidence was a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs. After the trial court denied his request for probation, the defendant argued on appeal that the court erred in ruling that his conviction for concealment of evidence (i.e., drugs) was a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs within the meaning of section 1210, subdivision (d), making defendant ineligible for Proposition 36 treatment. The defendant argued that his situation differed from that of the defendant in People v. Canty (2004)…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chatmon
Case #: A104929
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/23/2005
Subsequent History: rvw. den. 8/31/05

A defendant who received probation under a plea bargain resulting in dismissal of charges and later violates that probation and is ordered to serve time in jail cannot argue on appeal that he was entitled to treatment under Proposition 36. In exchange for dismissal of a charge of resisting an officer, defendant pled no contest to cocaine possession and entered a Harvey waiver and waived his right to appeal. He was placed on probation with a 90-day jail term; he later violated probation and was reinstated on condition that he serve a 120-day jail term. He appealed, arguing that he…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Tanner
Case #: D043571
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/10/2005

Revocation of defendant’s Proposition 36 probation was premature because the prosecution had failed to make three separate formally noticed petitions before revoking his probation solely for drug-related reasons. The court here counted the number of violations admitted rather than the number of formal revocation proceedings. The People conceded on appeal that this was error, but argued that the court had also found defendant to be unamenable to treatment, and that furthermore, the procedural issue was waived by defendant’s failure to object. The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that the court had failed to reach the amenability issue…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Martinez
Case #: B170558
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 03/28/2005

The court that accepts a defendant’s plea bargain need not be the same court that holds a later probation revocation hearing in the same case. Here, defendant pled and was placed on probation in one division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and later had his probation revoked by a different branch. The Court of Appeal held that People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 did not apply to probation revocation proceedings. The court further found substantial evidence to support a violation of probation for forgery based on defendant’s possession of a forged check, and finally…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guzman
Case #: S119129
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/21/2005

Review was granted in this case to determine whether Proposition 36 violates equal protection principles by failing to make its mandatory probation requirement applicable to those who commit nonviolent drug possession offenses (NDPO's) while on probation for offenses which are not NDPO's. The Court of Appeal found that the language of Proposition 36 excluded those defendants, and that the omission denied equal protection because the requirement does apply to parolees who commit NDPO's while on parole after completing prison terms for non-NDPO's. To remedy this, the Court of Appeal construed the requirement also to apply to offenders who…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wheeler
Case #: C045860
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/22/2005

Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, to forging a prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred when it denied him treatment pursuant to Proposition 36. The appellate court here rejected his argument and affirmed. Section 11368 does not meet the statutory definition of a "nonviolent drug possession offense" as required for treatment under Proposition 36. Section 11368 does not facially meet the definition because there is no requirement that the forgery be for the purpose of personal use. It is…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Foreman
Case #: A105691
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/31/2005

A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368, forging a prescription to obtain drugs, is not included in the description of nonviolent drug offenses under Penal Code section 1210, subdivision (a). Thus, treatment under the alternative sentencing provisions of Proposition 36 is not available for that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thurman
Case #: C044448
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/26/2005
Subsequent History: Revw den. 5/11/05

Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine, and was granted probation pursuant to Proposition 36, on the condition that he complete a drug treatment program and that he waive his right to any future custody credits for time spent in a residential treatment program. Appellant objected to the waiver of credits, but agreed to the terms of probation. On appeal, appellant contended that since the grant of probation was mandatory under Proposition 36, the trial court could not condition probation on the prospective waiver of custody credits. The appellate court rejected the argument. Penal Code…

View Full Summary