People v. Guzman CA2/3

DISCUSSION

1. Sentencing under Proposition 36 Guzman contends the trial court erred by sentencing him to a jail term, rather than to Proposition 36 probation, absent an express finding he was unamenable to any and all forms of drug treatment. He further avers that, even if the court had made such a finding, the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence of unamenability, and Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(5)3 authorized only a 30-day sentence, not the 16- month sentence actually imposed. We agree. a. Applicable law The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, commonly known as Proposition 36, was enacted to divert nonviolent defendants charged with simple drug possession or drug use offenses into community-based substance abuse treatment programs, rather than prison. (People v. Castagne (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 727, 732;

At trial, Guzman testified that he was actually staying in room 207; he had not told Gonzalez the methamphetamine or pipe belonged to him; and he signed the form admitting possession only after the deputies threatened to arrest his companion. He denied the methamphetamine or the pipe were his. All further undesignated…