 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Welch11/13/2001
A routine security search at the Kern County Courthouse in November 1997 revealed 24 milligrams of methamphetamine in a box of cigarettes belonging to appellant Sarah Diane Welch. Appellant pled guilty to the resulting possession charge (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), but entry of judgment was deferred so that she could pursue treatment (Pen. Code, § 1000). As appellant neared completion of her out-patient program, she was arrested and subsequently convicted in January 1999 for being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550) and driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). Finding her performance on diversion unsatisfactory, the court excluded appellant from the deferred entry of judgment program and reinstituted criminal proceedings against her in January 2000. The court sentenced appellant to six months in jail and three years' probation, but allowed her to remain free on bail pending this appeal.
Appellant now contends the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded her from deferred entry of judgment because of her conviction, failed to make necessary findings at the exclusion hearing, and imposed overly broad probation conditions. We will modify the probation conditions but otherwise affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
Sections 1000 and 1000.4 provide that a court may "divert" from the normal criminal process a defendant who is charged for the first time with possession of drugs under specified statutes, has not yet gone to trial, and is found to be suitable for treatment and rehabilitation at the local level. (People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 59, 61.) If a defendant is found suitable, entry of judgment is deferred for the duration of the program provided the defendant pleads guilty to the charges and waives time for trial. (§§ 1000.1, subd. (b), 1000.2.) If the defendant completes the program successfully, the narcotics charge is dismissed.
Being remedial in nature, the statute is construed liberally to promote its general purpose, which as this court has observed, is twofold:
"`First, diversion permits the courts to identify the experimental or tentative user before he becomes deeply involved with drugs, to show him the error of his ways by prompt exposure to educational and counseling programs in his own community, and to restore him to productive citizenship without the lasting stigma of a criminal conviction. Second, reliance on this quick and inexpensive method of disposition, when appropriate, reduces the clogging of the criminal justice system by drug abuse prosecutions and thus enables the courts to devote their limited time and resources to cases requiring full criminal processing.' [Citation.]" (People v. Barrajas (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 926, 930.)
However, deferred entry of judgment is not a right, but rather a pretrial alternative available to a particular category of defendants. (People v. Murphy (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th Supp. 5, 9.) It may be terminated for reasons identified in the statute (§ 1000.3) or for other good cause. (See Kramer v. Municipal Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 418, 423 [addressing an earlier version of the statute].)
The Trial Court Properly Excluded Appellant from the Deferred Entry of Judgment Program
Section 1000.3 provides that the court shall terminate a defendant's participation in the deferred entry of judgment program on finding that the defendant (1) has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor that reflects a propensity for violence, (2) has engaged in criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for the program, or (3) is not benefiting from or performing sati
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|