Cotton

People v. Cotton

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 558·230 Cal. App. 3d 1072·284 Cal. Rptr. 757·91 Daily Journal DAR 6758·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4123
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 1991Docket Nos. A050688, A052267California3,752 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Ruben James Cotton appeals his conviction by nolo contendere plea to sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) On appeal and in a consolidated petition for habeas corpus, he contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the probation revocation hearing, and that the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for refusing to reinstate probation.

Procedural History

On July 7, 1987, appellant pled nolo contendere to violating section 11352 as part of a plea bargain by which imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on three years probation with conditions including a jail term. In October 1989 probation was revoked, modified and reinstated.

In April 1990 appellant was arrested for again violating section 11352. Probation was revoked and substitute counsel was appointed after his original counsel declared a conflict. At the hearing following the probation revocation, defense counsel asked the court to permit appellant to remain on probation and enroll in a residential drug treatment program. Appellant specifically wanted to be admitted to the drug crisis center housed in an East Oakland church. The court stated it would…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.