Kirk

People v. Kirk

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 715·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1129·2006 Daily Journal DAR 9589·46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6674
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 2006G035897California2,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Penal Code section 1000 permits a court to defer judgment for certain novice drug offenders, and to divert the defendant from the normal criminal process for drug treatment. If diversion is successfully completed, the charges are dismissed.

One basis for exclusion from diversion is a “conviction for any offense involving controlled substances prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense.” (§ 1000, subd. (a)(1).) This case presents an issue of first impression: Does a guilty plea, on which sentence has not been imposed, constitute a prior conviction for purposes of section 1000? The term “conviction” has no fixed definition and is susceptible to different meanings that must be derived from the surrounding context. (People v. Rhoads (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 56, 60 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 266 ] {Rhoads).) For the purposes of section 1000, we conclude “conviction” means the ascertainment of guilt, which occurs as soon as the defendant pleads guilty (or a jury enters a guilty verdict) and does not require more.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in this case. The court and district attorney properly determined Michael John Kirk was ineligible for deferred entry of judgment…

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.