Campbell

People v. Campbell

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 4th 1279·15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 188·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1032·2004 Daily Journal DAR 7973·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5861
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 2004A104284California3,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

Defendant had pleaded guilty to a crime covered by Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, and received probation. At the hearing for his second drug-related violation of probation, defendant stipulated to an upper term sentence of three years as a condition of receiving outpatient treatment. Prior to the agreement, the trial court had determined that residential treatment was appropriate. After receiving probation and outpatient treatment, defendant committed a non-drug-related violation of his probation. The court revoked probation and sentenced him to the aggravated term of three years pursuant to the agreement. Defendant contends, among other things, that the trial court violated the terms of Penal Code section 1210.1, by requiring him to stipulate to an upper term in return for receiving a specific type of treatment. We hold that the trial court improperly abdicated its authority by allowing defendant to choose his treatment in exchange for a particular sentence and that defendant is not estopped from now challenging the three-year sentence when the court failed to state its reasons for imposing the sentence but simply relied on the invalid…

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.