Mendoza

People v. Mendoza

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 1030·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 375·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 330·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2647·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2092
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2003No. B158663California1,709 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mosk, J.

Defendant and appellant Rafael Mendoza pleaded guilty to a nonviolent drug possession offense in 1997, but he failed to appear for his sentencing hearing. Thereafter, the voters passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which measure became effective on July 1, 2001. The act provides for probation sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenders and operates prospectively. Defendant was *1032 finally arrested in May 2002, and received a sentence that included time to be served in the county jail. We hold that defendant is not entitled to disposition under Proposition 36, because he was “convicted,” as that term is used in the act, before its effective date. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Factual Background

In October 1997, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The terms of his plea agreement were that he would be placed on three years’ probation and serve one year in county jail. Defendant failed to appear at a probation and sentencing hearing that was scheduled for November 1997. The trial court issued a bench warrant for…

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.