Muldrow

People v. Muldrow

Bad Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 1038·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1794·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15057·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 848·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10562
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 2006F048923California3,440 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

Defendant Christopher Maurice Muldrow was convicted of one count of possession of methamphetamine. He also admitted that he had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5. On September 23, 2005, he was sentenced to prison for the upper term of three years plus four consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison terms, for a total of seven years. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in finding that a parole hold and the expectation that he would be returned, to prison on a parole violation made him ineligible for a drug treatment program under section 1210.1 (Prop. 36). We will vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the matter for resentencing based on a reassessment of defendant’s amenability for drug treatment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was wanted on a section 3056 parole hold from Sacramento. Law enforcement officers went to his home and arrested him. Officers found a bindle of methamphetamine in his sock.

The probation officer wrote a presentence report and considered defendant’s eligibility for participation in Proposition 36 drug treatment programs. The officer found defendant “ineligible as his…

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.