Legal Opinion

People v. Canty

California Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 2004No. S109537PublishedCited by 146 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEORGE, C. J.

Following the enactment of Proposition 36, the “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,” which took effect July 1, 2001, a defendant who has been convicted of a “nonviolent drug possession offense” must receive probation and diversion into a drug treatment program, and may not be sentenced to incarceration as an additional term of probation. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).) A defendant is ineligible for probation and diversion to such a program, however, if he or she has been “convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs or…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Robert L. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Taylor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by146 opinions

  1. People v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Smith v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. People v. ElmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Carter v. Dept. of Veterans AffairsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008

141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API