Hinkel

People v. Hinkel

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 845·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 20·2005 Daily Journal DAR 352·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 280
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2005C046395California2,415 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Bruce Hinkel pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), being under the influence of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and driving an unregistered vehicle (Veh. Code, § 4000, subd. (a)). The court deferred entry of judgment and ordered defendant to participate in a drug treatment program. (Pen. Code, § 1000 et seq.; all unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.) After defendant’s probation officer filed a notice of unsatisfactory diversion and moved for entry of judgment on defendant’s prior plea, defendant requested and was found eligible for “Prop. 36” probation. (§ 1210.1.) As a condition of his probation, defendant was, again, ordered to participate in a drug treatment program.

Thereafter, defendant participated in the required drug program but was “terminated from treatment for unacceptable behavior by making a threat to the group facilitator” two classes short of completion of the after-care portion of the program. Even so, the trial court allowed him to enroll in a different program so that he could attend the two group sessions he…

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.