In Re Scoggins

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 508·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 3181·2001 Daily Journal DAR 12992·94 Cal. App. 4th 650·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10401
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 2001B151619California2,688 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

Summary

In the General Election held November 7, 2000, the voters of California passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (the Act or Proposition 36). The Act requires probation and drug treatment, not incarceration, for the commission of “nonviolent drug possession offenses”, i.e., possession, use, transportation of controlled substances and similar parole violations. We address the interplay between the Act and deferred entry of judgment statutes, and find that where (1) a defendant committed a nonviolent drug offense within the meaning of the Act prior to the July 1, 2001, effective date of the Act; (2) the court deferred entry of judgment under Penal Code section 1000 et seq.; and (3) the court sentenced the defendant after the effective date of the Act, the defendant was “convicted” within the meaning of the Act on the date the previously deferred judgment was entered and sentence was imposed, and was entitled to be sentenced under the Act. Consequently, we grant the petition for habeas corpus with directions.

Facts and Procedural Background

On November 9, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information that…

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.