Gardner v. Schwarzenegger
Decision Date | 05 November 2009 |
Docket Number | No. A122920.,A122920. |
Citation | 101 Cal. Rptr. 3d 229,178 Cal.App.4th 1366 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CLIFF GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Jonathan K. Renner, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods and Kathleen A. Lynch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.
Altshuler Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Stacey M. Leyton; Drug Policy Alliance, Daniel N. Abrahamson, Theshia Naidoo and Tamar Todd for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Francisco J. Silva and Long X. Do for California Medical Association and California Psychiatric Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Secretary of State Debra Bowen appeal from a judgment enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill No. 1137 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) sections 1 through 12 (Stats. 2006, ch. 63, §§ 1-12; hereafter Senate Bill 1137), that sought to amend the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter Proposition 36). The issues are whether the provisions of Senate Bill 1137 challenged by plaintiffs Cliff Gardner, Drug Policy Alliance, and California Society of Addiction Medicine further the purposes of Proposition 36, and, if not, whether Senate Bill 1137 can be submitted to the voters for approval. We hold that certain of the challenged sections of Senate Bill 1137 cannot reasonably be construed to further the purposes of Proposition 36, and that Senate Bill 1137's provision for a popular vote, if any part of Senate Bill 1137 is invalidated, is itself invalid. Consistent with these conclusions, we affirm the judgment.
Proposition 36, passed by the voters in the November 2000 general election, generally provides that those convicted of drug possession offenses are initially to receive probation with drug treatment, rather than incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).)1 "Drug treatment" is defined to exclude drug treatment programs in a prison or jail facility. (§ 1210, subd. (b).)
Proponents of Proposition 36 argued in the Voter Information Guide to the election: (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) summary of Prop. 36, p. 3 (Guide).) Opponents argued among other things that the proposition would "tie[] the hands of judges" and "cripple[] legitimate treatment." (Guide, supra, rebuttal to argument in favor of Prop. 36, p. 26; id., summary of Prop. 36, p. 3.)
In Proposition 36, the electorate found and declared: (Guide, supra, text of proposed law, § 2, p. 66.)
Proposition 36's express purposes were: "(a) To divert from incarceration into community-based substance abuse treatment programs nonviolent defendants, probationers and parolees charged with simple drug possession or drug use offenses; [¶] (b) To halt the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the incarceration—and reincarceration—of nonviolent drug users who would be better served by community-based treatment; and [¶] (c) To enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crime and preserving jails and prison cells for serious and violent offenders, and to improve public health by reducing drug abuse and drug dependence through proven and effective drug treatment strategies." (Guide, supra, text of proposed law, § 3, p. 66.)
Proposition 36 further provided: (Guide, supra, text of proposed law, § 9, p. 69.)
Senate Bill 1137 was passed by the Legislature on June 27, 2006, as an urgency measure (Sen. Bill 1137, § 12), and signed by the Governor on July 12, 2006. It was entitled: "An act to amend Sections 11999.6, 11999.9, 11999.10, and 11999.12 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 1210, 1210.1, and 3063.1 of the Penal Code, relating to drug treatment, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately." The provisions of Senate Bill 1137 alleged to be inconsistent with the purposes of Proposition 36, detailed below, permit incarceration of defendants who violate probation in circumstances where incarceration is prohibited by Proposition 36, and narrow eligibility for Proposition 36 diversion.
Senate Bill 1137 was derived from Senate Bill No. 803 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 803), which was introduced in February 2005. An April 2005 Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of Senate Bill 803 stated that "[t]he most important source of conflict over SACPA [Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000] is the prohibition on any jail sanctions until probation is revoked." (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 803 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 19, 2005, p. 18.) "[T]he most contentious issue—perhaps the overriding issue—is the use of short-term incarceration (flash incarceration) sanctions for probation violations while a person participates in the act." (Id. at p. 25.) At this same time, the Legislative Counsel opined that 2 (Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 0508397 (Apr. 18, 2005) Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36): Permissible Amendments: Incarceration: Funding for Nontreatment Costs, p. 1.) Senate Bill 803 had not cleared the Assembly Public Safety Committee when its substance was added to Senate Bill 1137 on June 26, 2006, the day before Senate Bill 1137's passage; prior to that time, Senate Bill 1137 had been a one-sentence budget trailer bill.
Senate Bill 1137 included the following findings and declarations:
The Legislature further found and declared in section 10 of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
B.M. v. Superior Court
...courts].)5 The District Attorney finds it "curious and surprising" the Alexander C. opinion did not address Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1366, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 and Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1354, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 354, ......
-
People v. Moret
...(2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 995, 1000 , and People v. Murillo (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1418-1421 . (See also Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1366 .) The court saw "no reason to treat the plain language of section 11362.5 differently. It precludes the imposition of a `crimina......
-
People v. Lippert
...court's conclusion that Senate Bill No. 1437 is unconstitutional under the de novo standard of review. ( Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1374, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 229.) Article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution provides that "[w]hen a statute ......
-
Nunez–reyes v. Holder
...the charges under California Penal Code section 1210.1(e)(1), held unconstitutional in other part by Gardner v. Schwarzenegger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1366, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 (2009). Under that provision, the state court “shall ... set aside [the conviction] and ... dismiss the indictment” if th......