Skip to content
Name: In re Jose Z.
Case #: F042747
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/10/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/9/04

Proposition 36 does not apply to juvenile court adjudications, and the denial of the provisions of Proposition 36 to juveniles does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on the plain language of Penal Code section 1210.1, the court held that Proposition 36 applies only to those who are convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, not to those who are found to be offenders by the juvenile court. Further, this distinction does not violate equal protection guarantees because the liberty concerns of a minor and those of an adult offender are fundamentally…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Orabuena
Case #: H025987
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/25/2004

A trial court has discretion to dismiss a misdemeanor that would make a defendant ineligible for Proposition 36 sentencing. The defendant here was charged with and pled no contest to drug possession charges as well as a Vehicle Code violation for driving on a suspended license. First holding that the Vehicle Code charged rendered the defendant ineligible for treatment under Proposition 36, the court of appeal nonetheless held that the trial court retained discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss that misdemeanor offense in the interest of justice. The court distinguished In re Varnell (2003) 30…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ferrando
Case #: C042104
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/13/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 4/28/04

Appellant was convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11366, opening or maintaining a place for the use or sale of methamphetamine. The court denied his request to be sentenced under Proposition 36. The appellate court here affirmed that denial. Section 11366 is not a simple possession offense, but more like the commercial offenses expressly excluded from the provisions of Proposition…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wandick
Case #: C040921
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/23/2004
Subsequent History: 2/18/04 opn modified without chg in jmt

The trial court correctly held that the defendant was ineligible for treatment under Proposition 36 where, while awaiting trial on his drug possession case, the defendant committed grand theft and was sentenced to two years in prison for that offense. While Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (b), only excludes defendants from treatment under subdivision (a) of that section for certain prior and contemporaneous offenses, the court agreed with the prosecution that the defendant here fell outside the spirit of Proposition 36, and thus treatment under that section was properly…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: D041023
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/12/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. den. 1/12/04; Rev. den. 3/17/04

The defendant’s Proposition 36 probation was properly revoked for violations of non-drug-related conditions of probation. Defendant had twice violated her Proposition 36 probation by failing to report, failing to enroll in drug treatment, and failing to appear in court. The sentencing court revoked her probation and sentenced her to state prison, and the court of appeal upheld the revocation. Failure to report to the probation officer is a violation of a non-drug-related condition of probation , and thus the sentencing court had discretion to revoke probation. Further, the defendant was ineligible for further Proposition 36 treatment…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Glasper
Case #: H023404
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/01/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 2/18/04

The court did not err in finding the defendants ineligible for substance abuse treatment under Proposition 36 despite the prosecution’s failure to plead and prove that the transportation of narcotics was for some purpose other than personal use. A jury had acquitted the defendants of possession for sale and found them guilty of the lesser included offense of simple possession, but had also convicted them of transporting cocaine base. The defendants argued that the jury’s verdict precluded the sentencing court from finding that the drugs were possessed for any purpose other than personal use, and further claimed that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sharp
Case #: C039242
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/29/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of cultivating marijuana, and in this appeal, challenged the court's refusal to treat the case as a Proposition 36 sentencing case. Appellant contended that Prop 36 applies to a conviction for cultivation of marijuana for personal use, as it is a nonviolent drug possession offense and falls within the purpose of Proposition 36. The appellate court here disagreed and affirmed. Under the language of the statute, cultivation is not a nonviolent drug possession offense because the ordinary meaning of cultivation is not possession or being under the influence. Cultivation requires more than possession,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cantu
Case #: H024717
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/10/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. den. 11/6/03

Proposition 36 only applies to offenses involving controlled substances, not offenses involving…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guzman
Case #: H024003
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/08/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/12/03: S119129

Appellant committed a nonviolent drug possession offense (NVDPO) while on probation for a nonviolent nonserious felony offense and a misdemeanor offense. His motion for drug treatment under Proposition 36 was denied, and he appealed. The appellate court found that Proposition 36 does not apply to such individuals, but because their exclusion violates equal protection because of Proposition 36's applicability to similarly situated parolees, reversal was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Floyd
Case #: S105225
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/21/2003
Subsequent History: None

Proposition 36 does not apply to those defendants who were sentenced prior to the act's effective date of July 1, 2001, but whose judgments were not yet final. The court found controlling the express statutory provisions that the act "shall be applied prospectively." The court also rejected the contention that their interpretation violated federal or state Constitutional rights to equal protection of the…

View Full Summary