Dixon

People v. Dixon

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 146·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1670·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12227·5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 917·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9743
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 7, 2003C042734California2,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

In this case, we hold that a general condition of probation, requiring a defendant to report by mail to his probation officer, is not a drug-related condition of probation under Proposition 36. We also hold that, in sentencing a probationer who violated such a condition, the trial court properly applied the presumption against granting probation contained in Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4) (defendant who has suffered two prior felony convictions in this state is presumptively ineligible for probation). (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2002, defendant Dexter Nathaniel Dixon pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) with the understanding he would be considered for Proposition 36 treatment. (§ 1210.1.) Defendant was told that if he violated probation “twice” with a “drug-related offense,” he would be entitled to have probation reinstated and be referred back to counseling. However, defendant was also told if he violated probation for a reason other than a drug-related violation, he could be sent to prison. Defendant stated he understood.

On May 28,…

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.