Moore

Moore v. Superior Court

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 4th 401·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 433·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4073·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2821
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2004No. C044242California4,398 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Nicholson, J.

Petitioner Paul Roger Moore seeks a writ of mandate, contending he is eligible for probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. (Pen. Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1, 3063.1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11999.4 et seq.) 1 Proposition 36 requires the court to grant probation and drug treatment to any defendant convicted of a nonviolent drug possession offense and prohibits incarceration as a condition of probation. (§ 1210.1, subd. (a).)

However, as relevant here, Proposition 36 shall not apply to a defendant previously convicted of a serious or violent felony unless he or she has satisfied a so-called five-year “washout” period, that is, “unless the nonviolent drug possession offense occurred after a period of five years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and the commission of an offense that results in (A) a felony conviction other than a nonviolent drug possession offense . . . .” (§ 1210.1, subd. (b)(1), italics added.)

The sole issue is whether it is the commission or the conviction of the prior disqualifying felony that begins the washout period. We hold that the *404 washout period commenced when petitioner…

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.