Foreman

People v. Foreman

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 4th 338·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 132·2005 Daily Journal DAR 1279·23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 936
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2005A105691California1,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Here we conclude that forging or presenting a forged prescription to obtain drugs, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11368, does not fall under Proposition 36.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Our discussion of the facts is limited because no preliminary hearing was conducted and defendant agreed to a court trial based on the police reports. Defendant was arrested when he appeared at a pharmacy to collect a prescription for Vicodin. The prescription was written, without authorization, on a doctor’s preprinted pad. The physician’s signature was forged. Similar prescriptions were discovered at other pharmacies.

Initially referred to the drug court for treatment, defendant was ultimately excluded from the program following multiple drug test failures. He has a 20-year history of heroin and Vicodin addiction. Having been charged with 15 felony counts, he was convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11368 on four separate dates.

In rejecting defendant’s argument that he was eligible for treatment under Proposition 36, the court held that forging or uttering a prescription is not a “nonviolent drug possession offense” within the meaning of the…

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.