Tanner

People v. Tanner

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 223·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 751·2005 Daily Journal DAR 5408·28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3963
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 2005D043571California5,761 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment committing Lorenzo Lee Tanner to a five-year prison term after he admitted a third and fourth violation of drug-related conditions of probation and the court terminated his probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (the Act). (The Act is codified at Pen. Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1 and 3063 (all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified) and division 10.8 (commencing with § 11999.4) of the Health & Saf. Code.)

Tanner raises numerous arguments in support of his contention the trial court erred in prematurely revoking his Proposition 36 probation and sentencing him to prison. He essentially asserts the provisions of the Act required the state to formally make three separate noticed motions before the trial court could properly revoke his probation based solely upon drug-related violations of probation conditions imposed under the Act, and that without such due process and proper revocation, his failure to object to the court’s sentence does not result in a waiver because the sentence was unauthorized. Tanner finally contends that if the issues regarding his sentence and revocation of…

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.