Guzman

People v. Guzman

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 341·134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 799·2003 Daily Journal DAR 5845·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4597
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 2003No. B160672California3,163 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Spencer, J.

Introduction

The trial court placed defendant Roberto S. Guzman on drug treatment probation pursuant to Proposition 36 in two separate cases. Defendant thereafter failed to comply with any of the trial court’s directives. He did not report to the drug treatment center or to his probation officer. He instead left the country, absconding from the jurisdiction of the trial court. Upon his return to the United States, defendant did not report voluntarily to his probation officer or the drug treatment center. He appeared in court involuntarily only after being arrested on a bench warrant.

At the ensuing probation violation hearing, the trial court determined that defendant had refused drug treatment and thus was not amenable to treatment pursuant to Proposition 36. The trial court revoked his Proposition 36 probation and ordered, among other things, that he spend 180 days in county jail as a condition of his newly imposed non-Proposition 36 probation. Defendant challenges his sentence, contending that the trial court lacked the authority to terminate his Proposition 36 probation. We disagree and affirm the judgments.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 2 and October…

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.