 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Jackson2/19/2003
THE COURT
Appellant Andre D. Jackson entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, §11351.5), and also admitted the truth of a Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) gang enhancement allegation. The court sentenced him to a total of six years in state prison (four years for the possession for sale, plus two years for the gang enhancement). The superior court judge considered and then denied appellant's request that the court suspend execution of his sentence and order the district attorney to file a petition for commitment of appellant to the Director of Corrections for confinement in the state's narcotic detention, treatment, and rehabilitation facility (the California Rehabilitation Center, or "CRC") pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3051.
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION
Jackson contends that the court abused its discretion in refusing to order the district attorney to file a petition for a CRC referral. We find no abuse of discretion, and will affirm the judgment.
CRC REFERRAL PROCEEDINGS
Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 states in pertinent part:
"Upon conviction of a defendant for a felony, or following revocation of probation previously granted for a felony, and upon imposition of sentence, if it appears to the judge that the defendant may be addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics may be in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics the judge shall suspend the execution of the sentence and order the district attorney to file a petition for commitment of the defendant to the Director of Corrections for confinement in the narcotic detention, treatment, and rehabilitation facility unless, in the opinion of the judge, the defendant's record and probation report indicate such a pattern of criminality that he or she does not constitute a fit subject for commitment under this section."
" iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered." (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72; in accord, see also People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 59, 65.) " he term judicial discretion 'implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.'" (People v. Giminez, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 72; in accord, see In re Cortez (1971) 6 Cal.3d 78, 85.)
THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
In denying appellant's request for a CRC referral, the court stated:
"Now, as to the request for CRC commitment, and while the defendant does indicate in his statement to Probation that he is a daily drug user, both marijuana and rock cocaine, and does consider himself to be an addict, the Court in reviewing the defendant's criminal record notes that his only drug conviction was a conviction for sale of drugs to an undercover police officer. His other felony conviction was -involved the possession of three firearms, as a convicted felon.
"And while his record since that latter conviction in 1996 has been simply driving on a revoked license and related Vehicle Code violations, the Court does note that the defendant was in custody until the end of 1997.
"Based on his gang affiliation, his record of drug sales, and his possession of firearms, the Court finds him to be unsuitable for a CRC commitment, finds him excessively criminal , based on that offense, as well as the offense that brings him before the Court here today.
"On that basis, will deny the request for consideration under 3051 of the Welfare and Institutions Code."
The court's
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|