Skip to content
Name: People v Atwood
Case #: C042683
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/18/2003
Subsequent History: None

The trial court revoked defendant's probation under Proposition 36 for the first time for failing to complete her drug treatment program and for failing to keep an appointment with her probation officer, without making a finding that defendant posed a danger to others. Since a first violation of a drug-related condition of probation requires another grant of probation unless the defendant is found to be a danger to others, the appellate court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether her failure to follow the probation officer's order to meet was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Varnell
Case #: S104614
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/19/2003
Subsequent History: None

The trial court relied on petitioner’s prior serious felony conviction and resulting prison term within the previous five years, to deem him ineligible for mandatory drug treatment and probation under Proposition 36. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had the power under Penal Code section 1385 to disregard petitioner’s prior history, even though petitioner’s ineligibility was not a charge or allegation in the information that could be dismissed, and remanded for the trial court to reconsiders its sentence. The Supreme Court granted review in order to determine whether a trial court may rely on section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guzman
Case #: B160672
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/30/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was granted probation for his drug offenses, pursuant to Proposition 36, but left the country, failing to report to probation or the drug treatment center. He did not report to either upon his return to the United States, and appeared in court involuntarily after being arrested on a bench warrant. The trial court revoked his Proposition 36 probation and imposed a "non-Proposition-36" probation, a condition of which was 180 days in jail. Appellant challenged the sentence on appeal. Here, the appellate court affirmed the judgment. Appellant rendered himself ineligible for Proposition 36 probation by…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Espinoza
Case #: A100485
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/14/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. denied 5/12/03

Where the defendant, who is otherwise eligible for Proposition 36 treatment, is an illegal alien who faces a substantial likelihood of being deported so as to prevent completion of a drug treatment program, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying probation under Proposition 36. Here defendant had twice before been deported following criminal convictions, and thus the court found a strong probability he would again be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Esparza
Case #: C040863
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/01/2003
Subsequent History: None

As Proposition 36 treatment (Pen. Code, secs. 1210, 1210.1, 3063.1) is mandated for qualifying defendants, its application is not waived on appeal the failure to seek it at the trial court level. However, Proposition 36 only applies when the underlying offense is a drug offense. Merely because the case is currently before the court includes a violation of probation constituting a drug offense does not qualify the person for Proposition 36 treatment. Also, the fact that a defendant now has one case making him eligible does not require Proposition 36 treatment when the defendant is sentenced to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Campbell
Case #: H023299
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/28/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 5/21/03: S115020

A conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Veh. Code, sec. 23152, subd. (a)) before Proposition 36’s effective date (7/1/01) and which was used, after 7/1/01, to revoke his earlier grant of probation was a "non-qualifying" Proposition 36 offense or probation violation. The gravamen of the offense is driving, and the conviction rendered Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (e)(3)(D)…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Williams
Case #: A096823
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/27/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 5/14/03.

Proposition 36 (treatment for drug offenders) applies to defendants whose probation is revoked after the July 1, 2001, the effective date of the act, for conduct occurring before the effective date. A defendant’s pre-act violations of probation must be considered in determining whether the defendant is eligible for further probation. Thus the court could consider appellant’s failures at rehabilitation occurring before the acts’ effective date in determining whether appellant had failed twice before at rehabilitation, thus making him ineligible for further Proposition 36…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Taylor
Case #: B161535
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 02/04/2003
Subsequent History: Rehg. denied 2/21/03. Rev. denied 5/21/03.

When a nonviolent drug offender only twice violates his drug-related conditions of probation, the court doesn’t have discretion to impose jail time. Here appellant pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine and was placed on probation with certain conditions. Two months later, Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, sec. 1210.1) took effect. Prop 36 applied to appellant, a nonviolent drug offender who was already on probation. Appellant then violated his probation by failing to appear for several drug tests, and a second time by testing positive for cocaine and failing to report. For the first violation, the…

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

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…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Mehdizadeh
Case #: B161117
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 01/29/2003
Subsequent History: Order mod opinion and Rehg. denied 2/27/03. Rev. denied 5/21/03.

Appellant was a probationer covered by the provisions of Proposition 36 when the trial court revoked his probation and incarcerated him pending a formal hearing on first time violations of drug-related conditions of probation. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and OSC was issued. In this opinion, the appellate court held that under the statute, probation cannot be revoked the first time a probationer violates a drug-related probation condition unless there is evidence the probationer poses a danger to society. Probationers subject to Proposition 36 can only have their probation revoked in…

View Full Summary