Dagostino

People v. Dagostino

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 4th 974·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 541·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4609·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3269
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 2004F042059California8,676 words

Opinion

Opinion

Harris, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Dominic Joseph Dagostino pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and was placed on probation pursuant to Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210.1). Appellant subsequently violated probation and the trial court found his violation—failing to report to the mental health “gatekeeper” for an initial evaluation—was not a drug-related condition of probation, and excluded him from further treatment under Proposition 36. On appeal, appellant contends his failure to report to the “gatekeeper” was a drug-related condition of probation, pursuant to the provisions of the statute, and he should not have been excluded from Proposition 36. We will reverse and remand for further appropriate proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At approximately 10:20 p.m. on June 2, 2001, Bakersfield Police Officers Menendez and Waynewright were on patrol on South Union Avenue when they pulled into the parking lot of the Desert Star Motel, an area known for prostitution and narcotics activities. They observed appellant standing in front of the motel with a man and a woman. The officers approached and asked what they were doing. Appellant was nervous and…

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.