Armstrong

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The prosecution charged Armstrong with offenses in two cases. In case No. C2409748, the prosecution charged Armstrong with two counts of vandalism causing $400 or more in damage (§ 594, subd. (a)). In case No. C2416888, the prosecution charged Armstrong with one count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The latter complaint alleged an enhancement that Armstong was out of custody on supervised own recognizance when he committed the offense (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). This complaint also included a notification that the prosecution reviewed its files and was satisfied Armstrong met the requirements for deferred entry of judgment under section 1000.7. The trial court referred Armstrong to the county probation department for a section 1000.7 deferred entry of judgment interview. The probation department responded with a letter stating Armstrong “was found unsuitable” for the program. The probation department cited the fact that Armstrong was a resident of Alameda County in concluding Armstrong was “unsuitable” for deferred entry of judgment “based on his inability to benefit from supervision services . . . or be seen to standard, due to…