O'CONNELL

People v. O'CONNELL

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 1062·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 535·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3992·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3152
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 2003C040876California1,983 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

Joshua Mark O’Connell was convicted of several drug offenses and referred to a drug treatment program. The trial court terminated appellant from the program after he failed to attend any sessions. In this appeal we reject appellant’s claim that his termination was based on inadmissible hearsay. We will remand the case, however, because the court ordered appellant to pay for the costs of probation supervision without inquiring into his ability to pay.

Facts and Proceedings

Appellant was charged by complaint with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364).

Appellant pleaded guilty to both counts on July 31, 2001. Appellant was placed on probation for three years on condition he participate in the deferred entry of judgment program, which required, inter alia, that he attend drug counseling sessions.

On January 8, 2002, appellant’s probation officer filed a report requesting that appellant show cause why he should not be terminated from the deferred entry of judgment program due to too many absences. Attached to the report was an…

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.