People v. Espinoza
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MARGULIES, J.
Defendant Miguel Rafael Canceco Espinoza, an illegal alien subject to deportation, pleaded no contest to possession of heroin and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying him probation under the provisions of Proposition 36. In view of the substantial likelihood that defendant will be deported, we hold that probation is not mandatory under Proposition 36 because it is impossible to condition such probation on defendant’s completion of a drug treatment program. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment sentencing defendant to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. Alejandro Robles-RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Miguel Angel Arellano-TorresCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- People v. EsparzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- People v. SanchezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- People v. CisnerosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. GalvanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- People v. Hernandez-ClavelColorado Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. MuldrowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. ArceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- State v. SilveraCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.