Enriquez

People v. Enriquez

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 4th 230·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 238·72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 2008C055896California5,145 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

In People v. Hazle (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 567 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 ], this court concluded that what appears to be a third petition to revoke a defendant’s probation under Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) for drug-related reasons may not be treated as a separate noticed motion to revoke probation if the defendant was not on notice of the second petition at the time of the conduct underlying the third petition. This case gives us the opportunity to reiterate that conclusion and add to it another conclusion that reasonably follows from the first—a second petition may not be treated as a separate noticed motion to revoke probation if the defendant was not on notice of the first petition at the time of the conduct underlying the second petition. And where—as here—both situations exist, then what appear to be three separate petitions to revoke probation must be treated as one, and the defendant’s Proposition 36 probation cannot be revoked, no matter how many violations of probation may be involved, unless the state proves the defendant poses a danger to others.

Based on the foregoing reasoning, we will conclude the trial court erred here in…

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.