ERIBARNE

People v. ERIBARNE

Good Law
124 Cal. App. 4th 1463·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2158·2004 Daily Journal DAR 14961·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11098
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 2004F044634California2,510 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dawson, J.

Proposition 36, also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (the Act), was approved by the voters of California on November 7, 2000. It requires, with certain exceptions, that “any person convicted of a nonviolent drug possession offense shall receive probation” and “[a]s a condition of probation the court shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program.” (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).) For those offenders who qualify for Proposition 36 probation and drug treatment, “[a] court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation.” (§ 1210.1, subd. (a).) The Act excludes five listed categories of nonviolent drug possession offenders from Proposition 36 probation. (§ 1210.1, subd. (b)(l)-(5).) The first of these five categories is; “[a]ny defendant who previously has been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies in violation of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or Section 1192.7, unless the nonviolent drug possession offense occurred after a period of five years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and the commission of an offense that results in (A) a felony…

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.