People v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WARD, J.
The People have filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside an order placing defendant on probation pursuant to Proposition 36. We hold that defendant is not eligible for drug treatment probation pursuant to Proposition 36. In so holding, we determine that the five-year washout period of Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(1),1 must immediately precede the current drug possession offense in order for defendant to be eligible for drug treatment. We also find that defendant was ineligible for drug treatment probation under subdivision (b)(2) of section…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Kellett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- People v. RizoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- People v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. ORABUENACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. MurilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- People v. SUPERIOR COURT (HENKEL)California Court of Appeal · 2002
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.