People v. Haddad
Decision Date | 07 July 2009 |
Docket Number | No. B212880.,B212880. |
Citation | 176 Cal.App.4th 270,97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OUSAMA SAADEH HADDAD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Defendant, Ousama Saadeh Haddad, pled guilty to methamphetamine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); marijuana possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)); and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Defendant appeals from a subsequent probation revocation order. Defendant argues he was found in violation of probation based upon a drug-related offense; therefore, he was improperly denied the opportunity to participate in probation pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1210.1. This is commonly referred to as Proposition 36 probation. We affirm.
We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 99 S.Ct. 2781]; People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 122 P.3d 968]; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909.) On July 29, 2008, defendant was stopped while riding a bicycle. Defendant was agitated and fidgety, had rapid speech, and his pupils were constricted. Defendant admitted he had used methamphetamine that morning. After defendant was arrested, two baggies containing 1 gram of methamphetamine and 0.44 grams of marijuana were found in his pocket. On July 31, 2008, defendant pled guilty as set forth above. On August 14, 2008, the imposition of sentence was suspended. Defendant was placed on three years' probation pursuant to section 1210.1, subdivision (a).2 Defendant was ordered to not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, or related paraphernalia without a prescription; participate in a drug treatment program; submit to antinarcotic testing and search and seizure; and attend three Narcotics Anonymous meetings per week.
On November 17, 2008, defendant was found in possession of a device which attaches to an individual's body with a plastic tube that connects to a bottle filled with "clean" urine. (See People v. Budwiser (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 105, 107 .) The device is used to provide urine that does not contain evidence of narcotics use in order to falsely reflect a negative test result. On December 11, 2008, a probation revocation hearing was held. The prosecutor argued that defendant's possession of the device constituted the offense of producing false evidence to a court, a separate violation which was not drug related within the meaning of section 1210.1 subdivision (b)(2).3 Defendant admitted that he was wearing the alternate urine device when he appeared for court-ordered antinarcotic testing. However, defense counsel argued that defendant's acts were drug related, requiring the reinstatement of the initial grant of Proposition 36 probation. The trial court, relying on the case of People v. Moniz (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 86, 94 , ruled the use of the alternate urine device was not a drug-related violation of probation. In Moniz, our colleagues in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the defendant was ineligible for a grant of a Proposition 36 probation because his conviction for concealing heroin was not related to his use of drugs within the meaning of section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2).
In finding defendant was ineligible for Proposition 36 probation, the trial court ruled:
Defendant argues that the trial court improperly terminated his Proposition 36 probation because his use of the alternate urine device is a drug-related violation. We disagree. Section 1210, subdivision (d) states: "The term `misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs' means a misdemeanor that does not involve (1) the simple possession or use of drugs or drug paraphernalia, being present where drugs are used, or failure to register as a drug offender, or (2) any activity similar to those listed in (1)." Section 1210.1, subdivision (f)(2) provides: "If a defendant receives probation under subdivision (a), and violates that probation either by committing an offense that is not a nonviolent drug possession offense, or by violating a non-drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves to revoke probation, the court may remand the defendant for a period not exceeding 30 days during which time the court may receive input from treatment, probation, the state, and the defendant, and the court may conduct further hearings as it deems appropriate to determine whether or not probation should be reinstated under this section."
Our colleagues in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held: (People v. Esparza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 691, 695-696 ; see People v. Muldrow (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1042 .) In the decision of In re Taylor (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1398 , our colleagues in Division Eight of this appellate district held: (Original italics, fn. omitted; see People v. Enriquez (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 230, 240 .)
In People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1280-1285 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 90 P.3d 1168], our Supreme Court considered whether driving under the influence of drugs was a "misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs" within the meaning of section 1210, subdivision (d). Our Supreme Court discussed the voters' intent reflected in the official ballot pamphlet: (Id. (32 Cal.4th at p. 1281, fn. omitted.) Our Supreme Court concluded, "[S]ection 1210, subdivision (d)(2) may not fairly be construed to include the offense of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of drugs as an `activity similar' to the offenses described in section 1210, subdivision (d)(1)." (Id. at p. 1285.)
Likewise in People v. Moniz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at page 94, the court relied on the analysis in People v. Canty, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pages 1280-1285, and held that the offense of concealing evidence was a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs. In Moniz the Court of Appeal held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The People v. Smith
... ... 2000) Punishment, 577, p. 769; People v. O'Connell (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 (O'Connell); see also People v. Shepherd (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1197-1198.) In reviewing an order revoking probation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Haddad (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 270, 272; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466.) WePage 6review the entire record to ascertain whether the judgment is supported by evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (Elliot, supra, at p ... ...
-
People v. Jones
... ... 1160.)In reviewing an order revoking probation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine if substantial evidence supports the ruling. (People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773; People v. Haddad (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 270, 272.) We accord deference to the trial court's ruling, and, because the granting of probation is an act of "clemency and grace," the burden of proof at a probation revocation hearing is preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 445-447; ... ...
-
Punishment
...is called a “whizanator” which takes urine hidden in a bag through an artificial penis. The defendant in People v. Haddad (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 270 got caught trying to use one during a probation drug test while he was on Prop. 36. The Court held that this went beyond a drug-related violat......
-
Table of cases
...(Second Dist. COA, Div. 3 – Docket No. B268866), §1:34 People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, §10:27.4 People v. Haddad (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 270, §10:26.15 People v. Haendiges (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d Supp. 9, §9:35.5 People v. Hahn (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 349, §10:60.3 People v. Hajjaj......