Canty

People v. Canty

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 4th 903·123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 2002C039187California1,700 words

Opinion

Opinion

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

Defendant Michelle Elaine Canty entered negotiated pleas of guilty to transporting methamphetamine, a felony, (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and to driving under the influence of a drug (methamphetamine), a misdemeanor, (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (a)).

The trial court found defendant ineligible for drug treatment under Proposition 36, the "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000," a statutory initiative, which mandates probation without incarceration for specified drug offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1.) [1] She was placed on probation for the felony offense and given consecutive county jail terms for the misdemeanor offense and as a condition of probation for the felony offense.

On appeal defendant argues she was eligible for probation without incarceration pursuant to Proposition 36 because her offenses were "nonviolent drug possession offense[s]". (§ 1210.1. subd. (a).) We disagree.

Proposition 36 does not apply if the defendant was convicted in the same proceeding of "a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs" (§ 1210.1, subd. (b)(2)), defined as an offense not involving "the simple possession or use of drugs" (§ 1210, subd.…

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.