Delong

People v. Delong

Caution
101 Cal. App. 4th 482·124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 293·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4529·2002 Daily Journal DAR 9681·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7695
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 22, 2002B152019California4,438 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Introduction

In the case of In re DeLong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ], we addressed the threshold issue of when Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, and Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (a), enacted thereunder, first applied in a criminal proceeding. Today, in the published portion of this opinion, we return to Proposition 36 and, in another case of first impression, we decide an issue at the opposite end of the timeline of issues presented in Proposition 36 proceedings. Janet DeLong has appealed from the judgment (order granting probation) entered following her conviction by jury of possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). She was placed on probation for three years.

We hold here that although the appellant Janet DeLong’s conviction for possession was set aside pursuant to Proposition 36, because she successfully completed the prescribed drug treatment program and fulfilled her probation conditions, her appeal was not thereby rendered moot. That is so because she is entitled to an opportunity to clear her name and rid herself of the stigma of criminality. In addition, the conviction…

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.