People v. Williams
Decision Date | 29 July 2003 |
Docket Number | B158353. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George G. Lomeli, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA197521.
Affirmed.
Harry I. Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc J. Nolan and Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Donald Williams appeals from judgment entered (order granting probation) and contends the trial court erred in concluding he was not eligible for treatment under Proposition 36. For reasons explained in this opinion, we reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
On May 4, 2000, appellant pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Count 1) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and nolo contendere to one count of driving under the influence of drugs (Count 2) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). Entry of judgment in count 1 was deferred for a period of 24 months with the understanding that upon successfully completing the requirements of the program, the charge would be dismissed. As to count 2, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on summary probation for 36 months upon certain terms and conditions.
Following completion of his diversion program but before his case was dismissed, Williams was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in Orange County. As a result, the court terminated the deferred entry of judgment and criminal proceedings were reinstated .1 Thereafter, the court placed defendant on formal probation for 36 months upon certain terms and conditions.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in concluding he was not eligible for treatment under Proposition 36 and claims his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs was a misdemeanor related to the use of drugs within the meaning of Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(2).
Penal Code section 1210.1 provides in pertinent part,
Penal Code section 1210, subdivision (d) provides, "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 paragraph (1)."
(People v. Goldberg (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1206.)
Proposition 36 explained its intent, among other things, was "'( 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; [P] (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 [P] (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.'" (See Historical and Statutory Notes, 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code (2003 supp.) foll. § 1210, p. 221.)
Appellant contends driving unsafely while under the influence of drugs is a drug related activity that is similar to the simple...
To continue reading
Request your trial