WPC> A/d[ A-mlL\-F4XH 6,;)7DBǪMoat>n"CWoL%?6v%Q{q!+\P!9GN<+Zݛμs7FoH_Mw&={?;n֬CM!q=qYkGm}n*$!'b{r%q"uqckmɓ QϕZXw`?T )#p UN9 % 0Y ^ w 4   m 1u2 1 0 0Du 72 0N 0tOOOOOOOO 0*cM 0w 0' 0 0Q 0 0 0 0D B 1?vvbjrHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6 (Copy 2)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,ԛ74 ڋ34onnie3|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) '  $XXUSUS.,    1    _ThesematerialsareanupdateoforiginalmaterialspreparedinJanuary2004by  _FDAP_ԀStaffAttorneyKathyKahn.(M(3$ !·XXUSUS.,      0  (#$  0   i)   (O$(L2$ !·XXUSUS.,   C)XXUSUS.,  _    2  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  dLMNOPQRSxCcgkosw{TrianglesTriangle Bullet 5  $XXUSUS.,    4    _ThesummariesofthefourmodelsaredrawnfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentof  AlcoholandDrugProgramsJuly2005 FactSheet:DrugCourtPrograms.   $XXUSUS.,    3    _Informationforthissectionwasculledfrom DefiningDrugCourts:TheKey  Components,apublicationoftheU.S.DepartmentofJustice,whichisavailableonthe  NationalAssociationofDrugCourtProfessionalswebsite(www.nadcp.org/whatis/).  $XXUSUS.,    2    _ThefundingprovisionsofProp36beginatHealthandSafetyCodesection  11999.4.http://www.prop36.org/pdf/summary_comparison.pdfhttp://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/documents/sacpa080405.pdf !XXUSUS.,  _ RQ@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @VV"#QR_#%January21,2006 H #%4#RQ#QR#3 @ PROP36UNDERATTACK? P   # 3#   JeremyPrice  $t    \ # v# RQ@@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @@VV"#QR#%January21,2006 H #%#%@@ Prop36UnderAttack? f    Ӏ@aa RecentDevelopmentsandFutureProspectsoftheSubstance@@A A Abuse   andCrimePreventionActof2000.   #%3# @" TableofContents    I.Overviewofthelaw..............................................................................1  II.Issues inthecourts...............................................................................5  III.ProposedLegislativeamendmentstoProp36..................................17    IV.Drugcourts..........................................................................................24  V.Conclusion............................................................................................26  VI.Suggestedadditionalreading.............................................................27      !  TRX3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 Address  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPE3'LetterT  8dd8TABLEOFAUTHORITIES       FEDERALCASES      2%#X_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000)   X 2%#2%#530U.S.466 ! !D%#.| | 13,14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATECASES       2%#XInre_DeLong_(2001)     X 2%#2%#93_Cal.App_.4th562M"M"H%#. !15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Estrada_(1965)    X 2%#2%#63Cal.2d740M"M"H%#. 15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Scoggins_(2001)   X 2%#2%#94_Cal.App_.4th650M"M"H%#. !15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInreTaylor(2003)   X 2%#2%#105_Cal.App_.4th1394[rev.den.] ! !C%#.>>/4,8,9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Varnell_(2003)   X 2%#2%#30Cal.4th1132M"M"H%#.r r 14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Atwood(2003)   X 2%#2%#110_Cal.App_.4th8051 1 A%#."8,13,14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Ayele_(2002)   X 2%#2%#102_Cal.App_.4th1276[rev.gtd.(S111522)]""I%#.97    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Barasa_(2002) "  X 2%#2%#103_Cal.App_.4th287M"M"H%#."13 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Bowen(2004) % !  X 2%#2%#125_Cal.App_.4th101""I%#."9 &!"  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Campbell(2003) (#$  X 2%#2%#106_Cal.App_.4th808[rev.gtd.(S115020)]""I%#.tt88 )$%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Cantu_(2003) +&'  X 2%#2%#112_Cal.App_.4th729""I%#."7 ,'(  X 2%#2%#Peoplev.Canty(2004)   X 2%#2%#32Cal.4th1266!!F%#.r r 6,7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Chatmon_(2005)   X 2%#2%#129_Cal.App_.4th771M"M"H%#."11   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Dagostino_(2004)    X 2%#2%#117_Cal.App_.4th974!!F%#."8,9     X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Dixon(2003)    X 2%#2%#113_Cal.App_.4th146""I%#."9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Dove(2004)    X 2%#2%#124_Cal.App_.4th1M"M"H%#.D D 13    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Eribarne_(2004)   X 2%#2%#124_Cal.App_.4th1463M"M"H%#.#10   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Esparza_(2003)   X 2%#2%#107_Cal.App_.4th691=%#."2,11,14,16   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Espinoza_(2003)   X 2%#2%#107_Cal.App_.4th1069 ! !D%#.#10,11   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Floyd(2003)   X 2%#2%#31Cal.4th179M"M"H%#.  15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Foreman(2005)   X 2%#2%#126_Cal.App_.4th338""I%#."6    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Garcia(2002) "  X 2%#2%#99_Cal.App_.4th38""I%#.D D 7 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Glasper_(2003) %!!  X 2%#2%#113_Cal.App_.4th1104M"M"H%#.#13 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Guzman(2003) ($$  X 2%#2%#109_Cal.App_.4th341M"M"H%#."10 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Guzman(2005) +''  X 2%#2%#35Cal.4th5771 1 A%#.  5,16,17 ,((  X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Hinkel_(2005)   X 2%#2%#125_Cal.App_.4th845""I%#."4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Johnson(2003)   X 2%#2%#114_Cal.App_.4th284@%#."10,12,22   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Mehdizadeh_(2003)    X 2%#2%#105_Cal.App_.4th995""I%#."2    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Mendoza(2003)    X 2%#2%#106_Cal.App_.4th1030[rev.den.]M"M"H%#.>>/15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Murillo_(2002)    X 2%#2%#102_Cal.App_.4th1414""I%#.#3    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Sharp(2003)   X 2%#2%#112_Cal.App_.4th1336!!F%#.#5,6   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(_Henkel_)(2002)   X 2%#2%#98_Cal.App_.4th78M"M"H%#.D D 12   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Jefferson)(2002)   X 2%#2%#97_Cal.App_.4th530M"M"H%#. !12   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Martinez)(2002)   X 2%#2%#104_Cal.App_.4th692M"M"H%#."12   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Turner)(2002)   X 2%#2%#97_Cal.App_.4th1222M"M"H%#."12    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Tanner(2005) "  X 2%#2%#129_Cal.App_.4th223""I%#."9 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Thurman_(2005) %!!  X 2%#2%#125_Cal.App_.4th1453M"M"H%#.#14 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Westbrook_(2002) ($$  X 2%#2%#100_Cal.App_.4th378M"M"H%#."12 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Wheeler(2005) +''  X 2%#2%#127_Cal.App_.4th873""I%#."6 ,((  X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATESTATUTES     CaliforniaRulesofCourt   Rule29.3""J(#.8   2%#X EvidenceCode    500 ! !D%#.13,14   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X HealthandSafetyCode    11999.4""I%#.2   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X PenalCode    667 ! !E(#.11,12  667.5 ! !E(#.8812,19  1000""J(#.2  1000.21000.3""I%#. 2  ?+ ` hp x 2%#?1192.7P"P"I(#.12  1170.12""J(#.3  1203 C(#.3,5,16    2%#X1210=%#.5,12,18,22 " ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X1210.1 D%#.passim $  1385P"P"I(#.14 &!" 3063.1;(#.2,5,16,19,23 (#$ ?+ ` hp x 2%#?  )$%       Prop36UnderAttack?  RecentDevelopmentsandFutureProspects  oftheSubstanceAbuseandCrimePreventionActof2000.  JeremyPrice_  #  1      _  FirstDistrictAppellateProject    C  January2006   5EWhenProposition36( Prop36)wasplacedontheballotin2000,itsucceededwiththe   statewideapprovalof61%ofthevoters.BypassingProp36,theSubstanceAbuseand    CrimePreventionActbecamelawinCalifornia,therebymakingtreatment(andnot   incarceration)thedefaultoutcomeforindividualsconvictedofthenonviolentpossession   ofillegaldrugsforpersonaluse.Themagnitudeofthismarginofsupportwas   particularlyremarkablewhenviewedinlightoftheelectoratespenchantforsupporting   ballotmeasuresthatpurporttobe toughoncrime.   Notwithstandingthebroadsupportofthevoters,Prop36facesanuncertainfuture.  Appellatecourtdecisions,pendingbillsinthelegislature,andgrowingsupportforthe  drugcourtmodeloffercompetingvisionsforthefutureofconfrontingdruguseingeneral  andProp36inparticular.  ThedebateoverProp36mainlyfocusesontherespectivebenefitsofcommunitybased  treatmentprogramsandincarcerationwhendealingwithdrugoffenders.Priortodelving  intothedebateoverthefutureofProp36,however,itisimportantfirsttounderstandthe  parametersofthelawitselfandhowthecourtshaveinterpretedthemeasuresinceits  passageoverfiveyearsago.   I.OVERVIEWOFTHELAW   Prop36ispremisedonthenotionthatdrugaddictionisbestcombatedthroughoutof ! custodyrehabilitationprogramsratherthanincarceration.Whenpresentedtothevoters, " Prop36containedthefollowingexpressionofpurposeandintent: # ThePeopleoftheStateofCaliforniaherebydeclaretheirpurposeandintent % ! inenactingthisActtobeasfollows: &!"  MM` ` Ҁ(a)Todivertfromincarcerationintocommunity-based (#$ substanceabusetreatmentprogramsnon-violentdefendants, )$% probationersandparoleeschargedwithsimpledrug  possessionordruguseoffenses;  ̀(b)Tohaltthewastefulexpenditureofhundredsofmillions  ofdollarseachyearontheincarceration!and  re-incarceration!ofnon-violentdruguserswhowouldbe   betterservedbycommunity-basedtreatment;and   ̀(c)Toenhancepublicsafetybyreducingdrug-relatedcrime   andpreservingjailsandprisoncellsforseriousandviolent   offenders,andtoimprovepublichealthbyreducingdrug   abuseanddrugdependencethroughprovenandeffectivedrug   treatmentstrategies.   ` M` MWiththeseguidingprinciplesinmind,theProp36program,ascodifiedatPenalCode  sections1210.1and3063.1, #  2      ׀iscomprisedofthefollowingelements:  InitialEligibility  KAnyoneconvictedofanonviolentdrugpossessionoffense(_NDPO_)getsprobation.  Probationconditionswillinclude anappropriatedrugtreatmentprogram.Theymay  includeothereducational,counseling,andcommunityserviceconditions.Theymaynot  includejailtime.(1210.1(a).)  WhenadefendantiseligibleforProp36probation,however,itsapplicationismandatory.  Atrialcourtsimplyhasnodiscretiontoimprisonaneligibledefendant.Itcannoteven  summarilyrevokehisprobationforadrugrelatedviolation.(Peoplev.  _Mehdizadeh_Ԁ(2003)105_Cal.App_.4th995.)Unlikethedeferredentryofjudgment  program(Pen.Code,1000,1000.2-1000.3),thecourtcannotdecidethatadefendantisa   poorcandidatefordrugtreatment.Ifs/heseligible,s/hegetshischanceatit. ! Eventhatbaneoftheappellatelawyerspractice,thefailuretoobjecttotrialcourterror, # doesnotapplyhere. PlacementofeligibledefendantsinProposition36programsisnot $  adiscretionarysentencingchoicemadebythetrialjudgeandisnotsubjecttothewaiver %!! doctrine.(Peoplev._Esparza_Ԁ(2003)107_Cal.App_.4th691,699.) &""  '## Ofcourse,as_Esparza_Ԁpointsout,afindingthatadefendantisnoteligibleforProp36's  mandatoryprobationdoesnotmeanhecanthaveprobationatall.Hemaywellbe  eligiblefordiscretionaryprobation,underthenormalprobationstatutesatsection1203et  seq.Ontheotherhand,somedefendantswhoareeligibleforProp36probationarenot  eligiblefordiscretionaryprobation!notably,defendantswithfive-year-oldstrikepriors.  IftheycantmakeitintotheclassofProp36eligibles,theyarebarredfromprobationby   theThreeStrikeslaw,nomatterhowancienttheirstrikepriormaybe.(Compare   1210.1(b)(1),theProp.36eligibilityprovision,with1170.12(a)(2),theThreeStrikes   probationbar.)   InitialIneligibility    Onlydefendantswhofallintoaparticularexcludedcategoryofpersonsmaybe   incarcerated.(Peoplev._Murillo_Ԁ(2002)102_Cal.App_.4th1414,1418.)Thefiveclasses   of_excludables_Ԁarelistedinsection1210.1(b)andinclude:   [LMNOPQRSV(y3 "L3"  L3_23  0    Personswith strikepriorsthathavent washedout.(1210.1(b)(1).)L3__݌(#(# Ќ  "L3"  L3`23  0    Personswhoinadditiontotheir_NDPO_Ԁarealsoconvictedofa misdemeanornot  relatedtotheuseofdrugsoranyfelony.(1210.1(b)(2).)L3``݌(#(# Ќ  "L3"  L36b23  0    Personswhouseaguninconnectionwithpossessionoruseofvariousdrugs.(  1210.1(b)(3).)L36bcb݌(#(# Ќ  "L3"  L3cc23  0    Personswhorefusedrugtreatmentasaconditionofprobation.(1210.1(b)(4).)L3ccc݌(#(# Ќ  "L3"  L3nd23  0    Personswhohavetwo_NDPOs_,havefailedtwodrugprograms,andhavebeen  foundbyclearandconvincingevidencetobeunamenableto anyandallformsof  availabledrugtreatment.Thesepersonsshallbesentencedto30daysinjail.(   1210.1(b)(5).)L3ndd݌!(#(# Ќ  SuccessfulCompletionofTreatment # Section1210.1(d)authorizes dismissalofchargesuponsuccessfulcompletionofdrug %!! treatment. &"" Specifically, successfulcompletionallowsadefendanttopetitionthecourtfor ($$ expungement.(1210.1(d)(1).) [_T]he_Ԁdefendantshallthereafterbereleasedfromall )%% penaltiesanddisabilitiesresultingfromtheoffenseofwhichheorshehasbeen *&& convicted!exceptthats/hecannotownorpossessagun(1210.1(d)(2)),ands/hemust +'' disclosetheconvictiononanyapplicationforpublicoffice,forapeaceofficerjob,orina  licenseapplication.(1210.1(d)(3).)  Whatisa successfulcompletion?Thisdeterminationappearstobeleftuptothe  discretionofthetrialcourt.Thecourtmayfind,forexample,thattreatmentwasnot  successfulifthecourtlackedreasonablecausetobelievethedefendantwouldnotabuse   drugsinthefuture.(Peoplev._Hinkel_Ԁ(2005)125_Cal.App_.4th845,85152.) Mere   completionoftheprogramisnotenough;thecourtmustalsofindtheprogramwas,for   theindividualdefendant,effectivetothepointthat,post-completion,reasonablecause   existstobelievethatthedefendantwillnotabusecontrolledsubstancesinthefuture.   (Id.atp.851.)   Therefore,inpracticalterms,whenseekingdismissalofchargesuponcompletionofa   treatmentprogrampursuanttoProp36,defendants(andtheirlawyers)shouldassembleas   muchevidenceaspossibletodemonstratesuccessfulcompletionthatis,reasonable  causetobelievedefendantwillnotabusedrugsinthefuture.  RevocationofProp36Probation    Probationers  Theprobationrevocationschemeissetoutatsection1210.1(e)andisthesamewhether  theunderlying_NDPO_ԀconvictionpredatesorpostdatestheenactmentofProposition36.  Ifaprobationviolationisnotdrug-related,thecourtmustholdahearingandmayrevoke  probationundertheordinaryrules.(1210.1(e)(2).)  Butiftheprobationviolationisdrug-related,thelawrecognizesthat drugabusersoften  initiallyfalterintheirrecoveryand givesoffendersseveralchancesatprobationbefore  permittingacourttoimposejailtime.(InreTaylor(2003)105_Cal.App_.4th1394,   1397.) !    `     h      p      x  ! ! [LMNOPQRSV(yy[LMNOPQRSV"L3"  L3s23  0    Onafirstdrug-relatedviolation,thecourtcannotrevokeprobationunlessthe # prosecutionprovesbyapreponderancethatthedefendant posesadangertothe $  safetyofothers.Thecourtmay,however, intensifyoralterthetreatmentplan. %!! (1210.1(e)(3)(A)[forProp.36probationers]and(D)[fordefendantsalreadyon &"" probationatthetimeProp.36tookeffect].)L3st݌'##(#(# Ќ  "L3"  L3`v23  0    Onaseconddrug-relatedviolation,thecourtcanrevokeprobationifthe )%% prosecutionprovesbyapreponderanceeitherthatthedefendantposesadangerto *&& thesafetyofothersorthats/heisunamenabletodrugtreatment.Again,thecourt +'' may intensifyoralterthetreatmentplan,ifitmaynotrevoke.L3`vv݌(#(# Ќ    (1210.1(e)(3)(B)and(E).)  ! ! [LMNOPQRSV(yy[LMNOPQRSV"L3"  L3py23  0    Onathirddrug-relatedviolation, thedefendantisnoteligibleforcontinued  probationundersubdivision(a).(1210.1(e)(3)(C)and(F).)(Thisdoesnotsay  thats/heisineligibleforprobationunder1203,theregularprobationstatute.But   thatstatute,unlike1210.1,_subd_.(a),allowsthecourttoimposejailtimeasa   condition.)L3pyy݌ (#(# Ќ    Parolees   Paroleesgettwochances,comparedtotheprobationersthree.(3063.1(d)(3)(A)-(D).)   Likeprobationers,theyare_excludable_Ԁiftheycommita misdemeanornotrelatedtothe   useofdrugsoranyfelonyotherthana_NDPO_Ԁwhileonparole.(3063.1(b)(2).)They   arealso_excludable_Ԁiftheyrefusedrugtreatmentasaconditionofparole.  (3063.1(b)(3).)  Themajordifferencebetweenparoleesandprobationersworksinfavorofparolees:their  underlyingoffensedoesnothavetobean_NDPO_.Theycanbeonparoleforanything  otherthanaseriousorviolentfelony.(3063.1(b)(1).)Anequalprotectionchallengeto  thisseeminglyinconsistentapplicationofProp36wasrecentlyrejectedbytheCalifornia  SupremeCourt(Peoplev.Guzman(2005)35Cal.4th577)andisdiscussedingreater  detailbelow.   II.ISSUESINTHECOURTS    1.Whatisanonviolentdrugpossessionoffense?Moreimportantly,whatisnot?   CultivationofMarijuanaForPersonalUse   Peoplev.Sharp(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th1336,holdsthatcultivationofmarijuana,even " forpersonaluse, doesnotmeetthestatutorydefinition[ofa_NDPO_]...becauseitisnot # possession,use,ortransportationforpersonaluseorbeingundertheinfluenceofa $  controlledsubstance.(Pen.Code,1210,_subd_.(a).)Rather,cultivationfallswithinthe % ! excludedoffensesofpossessionforsale,production,ormanufacturing.... &!" InSharp,theThirdDistrictacknowledgedthedefendantsargumentsthatcultivationfor (#$ personaluseoughtlogicallytobecoveredbyProp36,asitfitsundertheexpresspurpose )$% ofthestatuteanddoesnotdisqualifyadefendantfordeferredentryofjudgment. *%& However,thecourtrefusedtobudgepasttheliterallanguageofthestatute.Perhapsin +&' tacitrecognitionofthefactthatProp36wasacarefullycraftedcompromisemeasure,  witheachprovisiontestedbeforefocusgroupstoensurethatitwouldnotthreatenthe  lawspassage,thecourtheldbackfromanyenlargement:  Earlierdiversioncases,accordingtoSharp, teachthatwhereastatutoryscheme  designedtoprovidetreatmentfornonviolentdrugoffendersfailstoincludeaparticular   nonviolentdrugoffense,itisfortheLegislature,notthecourts,toamendthestatuteto   addthemissingoffense.(Peoplev.Sharp,supra,112_Cal.App_.4thatp.1342.)   ForgeryofaPrescriptiontoProcureDrugs   InPeoplev.Foreman(2005)126_Cal.App_.4th338andPeoplev.Wheeler(2005)127   _Cal.App_.4th873,theFirstandThirdDistricts,respectively,heldthattheoffenseof   forgingaprescriptioninordertoobtaindrugsillegallyforpersonaluseisnotan_NDPO_.   Asaresult,suchaconvictionpreventseligibilityunderProp36.   2.Whatisa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugs(1210.1(b)(2)),for  whichaconviction inthesameproceedingasthe_NDPO_ԀbarsProp.36eligibility?   DrivingUndertheInfluenceofIllegalDrugs  InPeoplev.Canty(2004)32Cal.4th1266,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthat a  convictionofmisdemeanordrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofdrugsconstitutesa  misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugsthat,pursuanttosection1210.1,subdivision  (b)(2),disqualifiesadefendantfromreceivingthealternativedispositionprovidedin  section1210.1,subdivision(a).  Inreachingthisconclusion,theCourtreliedon:(1)thedifferentdegreesofimpairment  requiredforconvictionforbeingundertheinfluenceanddrivingundertheinfluence;(2)   thedifferencesbetweentheconductthatisthecentralfocusofthestatutesprohibiting ! beingundertheinfluenceanddrivingundertheinfluence;(3)thedifferentinterests " societyseekstoprotectbycriminalizingbeingundertheinfluenceanddrivingunderthe # influence;and(4)thevotersintenttostrictlylimitProp36tosimplepossessionofdrugs $  andforProp36nottochangeothercriminallaws.(Id.at127881.) % ! WhileCantyspecificallydealtwithdrivingundertheinfluenceofacontrolledsubstance, '"# itappearstohavearticulatedtheanalyticalframeworkunderwhichthephrase (#$  misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugswillbeevaluatedgoingforward. )$% DrivingUndertheInfluenceofAlcohol +&' ЇDrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholisa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugs  undersection1210.1(b)(2).Peoplev._Cantu_Ԁ(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th729.Althoughthe  SupremeCourtgrantedreviewinthiscase,afterCanty,itdismissedreviewandremanded  thecasebacktotheSixthDistrict.  InCanty,theCourtnotedthat [_a]n_Ԁinterpretationofsection1210.1,subdivision(b)(2)   permittingadefendantconvictedofamisdemeanordrivingwhileundertheinfluenceof   drugstoreceiveprobationanddrugtreatmentundersection1210.1,subdivision(a),   wouldafforddriversimpairedbydrugsmorelenienttreatmentthanthataffordeddrivers   impairedbyalcohol.(Peoplev.Canty,supra,32Cal.4thatp.1283.)Itisclear,then,   thatdrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholconstitutesaProp36_disqualifier_.   TheftofDrugsforPersonalUse   InPeoplev.Garcia(2002)99_Cal.App_.4th38,theThirdDistrictheldthatpettytheftof  drugs,followedbytheirimmediateconsumption,wasamisdemeanorinvolvingtheuseof  drugsandwasthereforenotaProp36_disqualifier_.TheSupremeCourtgrantedreview,  butthecasewassubsequentlyabatedduetoGarciasdeath.  Indismissingthegrantofreview,thecourtnotedthependencyofCanty.Subsequentto  Canty,giventheCourtsinterpretationofthephrase misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuse  ofdrugs,itwouldappearthatsuchatheftwoulddisqualifyadefendantfromProp36  eligibilityforthefollowingreasons:(1)thecentralfocusofthetheftstatuteisnotsimilar  tothatofthelawsmakingpossessionofcontrolledsubstancesillegaland(2)tohold  otherwisewouldalterthepunishmentschemeforcertaintheftcrimes(whichwould  presumably,accordingtotheCourt,runcountertotheintentofthevotersinenacting  Prop36).    ResistingArrestinSimplePossessionCases   CA4/1heldthataDwhoresistedhisarrestforsimplepossessionwasdisqualifiedfor " Prop36treatmentbecausesection148isa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugs. # Peoplev._Ayele_Ԁ(2002)102_Cal.App_.4th1276,rev.gtd.S111522,briefingdeferredbehind $  Canty.AfterCanty,theCourtdismissedreviewandremandedtotheFourthDistrict,thus %!! leavingintactthe_Ayele_Ԁcourtsholdingthatresistingarrestforsimplepossessionisa &"" Prop36_disqualifier_. '##  3.Whatisadrugrelatedconditionofprobation?  )%% Undersection1210.1(e),adefendantcanstayonProp.36forhisfirsttwoprobation +&' violations!solongas(1)theviolationsareofdrugrelatedconditionsofprobation;(2)  thedefendantisonprobationforan_NDPO_Ԁinthefirstplace;and(3)thetrialcourtdoes  notfinds/heisadangertothepublic(forafirstviolation)and/orisunamenableto  treatment(forasecondviolation.)  Whichviolationsqualifyas drugrelated?Thestatutorydefinitionofa drugrelated   conditionofprobationisatsection1210.1(f).Itincludes aprobationer'sspecificdrug   treatmentregimen,employment,vocationaltraining,educationalprograms,psychological   counseling,andfamilycounseling.   _DUI_ԀNotaDrugRelatedProbationCondition   InPeoplev.Campbell(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th808,rev.gtd.S115020,theSixthDistrict   heldthatdrivingundertheinfluenceofdrugsnotonlyfailedasa_NDPO_Ԁandasa   misdemeanorrelatedtotheuseofdrugs,butitalsofailedtoqualifyasa drug-related  probationviolationundersection1210.1(e)(3).InOctober2004,theCourtdismissedits  grantofreviewperrule29.3(b)andremandedthecasetotheSixthDistrict,thusleaving  intacttheSixthDistrictsholding.  FailuretoReportforTestingDoesQualifyasaDrugRelatedProbationCondition  InreTaylor(CA2/8,2003)105_Cal.App_.4th1394,rev.den.5/21/03,heldthat   [_a]ppearing_Ԁ(orfailingtoappear)foradrugtest...satisfiesthedefinitionofa  drug-relatedconditionofprobation.(See1210.1,_subd_.(f).)becausedrugtestingis  partofthe drugtreatmentregimen.  Peoplev.Atwood(2003)110_Cal.App_.4th805heldthatfailuretoparticipateinadrug  treatmentprogramisadrugrelatedconditionofprobation,butfailureto followall  ordersmaynotbe.However,accordingtoAtwood,theburdenofproofthatacondition   isnotdrugrelatedisonthePeople. ! FailuretoReporttotheMentalHealth GatekeeperQualifiesasaDrugRelated # ProbationCondition $  InPeoplev._Dagostino_Ԁ(2004)117_Cal.App_.4th974,aspartofdefendantsProp36 &"" probation,hewasorderedtomeetwithamentalhealth gatekeeperwhowouldevaluate '## hiscircumstancesanddeterminethepropercourseoftreatment.Defendantfailedto ($$ showupforhisinitialevaluation.TheFifthDistrictheldthat [_s]ince_Ԁapersoncannotbe )%% placedintheappropriatedrugtreatmentprogramwithoutbeingevaluated,itfollowsthat *&& adrugtreatmentregimenincludestheinitialevaluation,andappearingorfailingto +'' appearforthatevaluationthussatisfiesthedefinitionofadrugrelatedconditionof  probation.(Id.at993,quotingInreTaylor,supra,105_Cal.App_.4thatp.1398.)  FailuretoMeetaGeneralReportingRequirementIsNotDrugRelated  Peoplev.Dixon(2003)113_Cal.App_.4th146heldthatadefendantwhofailedtoreportby   mail,asordered,hadviolatedanon-drug-relatedcondition. Thismethodofreporting   couldnothaveinvolvedadrugtestnorwasthereanythingelseaboutreportingbymail   thatwaspeculiartodefendant'sdrugproblemsordrugtreatment.    4.DodrugrelatedviolationsofnonProp36probationnegativelyaffectfuture   eligibilityforProp36probation?    Asnotedabove,offendersremainpresumptivelyeligibleforProp36probationthrough   twodrugrelatedviolationsoftheirProp36probation.Uponengaginginathirddrug   relatedviolation,however,defendantsarenolongereligibleforProp36.  InPeoplev.Bowen(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th101,theThirdDistrictheldthatdrugrelated  violationsofnonProp36probationcounttowardeligibilityforfutureProp36probation.  Therefore,eventhoughdefendantwasnotonProp36probationatthetimeofhisthird  drugrelatedprobationviolation,histhreedrugrelatedprobationviolationsrenderedhim  categoricallyineligiblefortreatmentpursuanttoProp36probation.So,thephrase   probationin1210.1(e)(3)(F)isnotlimitedtoProp36probation.   5.DoesathirddrugrelatedviolationautomaticallydisqualifydefendantsfromProp  36eligibility?   Notexactly.InPeoplev.Tanner(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th223,237,theFourthDistrict  heldthat thetrialcourterredinprematurelyrevokingTannersprobationunder   Proposition36solelyforthreeviolationsofdrugrelatedconditionsofhisprobationafter ! onlytwomotionsbythestateandtwohearingsforrevocation.AccordingtoPenalCode " Section1210.1(e)(3)(F),therelevantinquiryisthenumberoftimesthestatehasmoved # forrevocationofdefendantsprobation,notthenumberofviolationsadmittedbythe $  defendant.Whileinmostcases,thesenumberswillcorrespondtooneanother,whenthey % ! donot,andthestatehasnotbroughtathirdnoticedmotiontorevokeprobation,thereis &!" anissueripeforappeal. '"#   )$% Oa6.Whendoesapriorconvictioninvolveathreatofphysicalinjurytoanotherperson  andthereforeprecludeeligibilityforProp36probation?   UnderPenalCodeSection1210.1.(b)(1),anydefendantwhohasbeenpreviously  convictedofa misdemeanorconvictioninvolvingphysicalinjuryorthethreatof  physicalinjurytoanotherpersonisineligibleforProp36probation,unlessthatoffense   occurredafterProp36'sfiveyearwashoutperiod.   Misdemeanor_DUI_ԀInvolvestheThreatofPhysicalInjurytoAnotherPerson   InPeoplev._Eribarne_Ԁ(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th1463,appellantarguedthathisprevious   misdemeanor_DUI_ԀshouldnotdisqualifyhimforProp36probationbecausetherewasno   proofthattheoffenseinvolvedathreatofphysicalharmtoanotherperson.TheFifth   Districtdisagreedandconcluded thattheveryreasonwhydrivingwithablood-alcohol   levelof0.08percentorhigherhasbeencriminalizedispreciselybecausesuchconduct   presentsathreatofphysicalinjurytootherpersons.Therefore,thecourtheldthata  misdemeanor_DUI_ԀperseprecludeseligibilityforProp36probation.   7.Otherthresholdeligibilitybars:   RefusaltoAcceptDrugTreatment(1210.1(b)(4))  Thisbarcannotbebasedon apastrefusalofdrugtreatmentinsomeothercase,letalone  arefusaltotakeadrinkingdriverclass[inapreviouscase].Peoplev._Espinoza_Ԁ(2003)  107_Cal.App_.4th1069.  Butitcanbebasedonskippingoutonaninitialassignmenttoaprogram,followingthe  grantofprobation.InPeoplev.Guzman(2003)109_Cal.App_.4th341,thedefendant,  uponbeingplacedonprobation,wenttoMexicoforfivemonthsratherthantohis   assigneddrugprogram.Whenhewasbroughtbacktocourt,thejudgeviewedthisasan ! initialrefusalofdrugtreatment,undersection1210.1(b)(4),ratherthanasaviolationofa " drugrelatedprobationcondition,undersection1210.1(e)(3).TheCourtofAppealupheld # thejudge: Weholdthattheeligibilityrequirementscontinuetoapplyevenafterthe $  initialgrantofprobation....Suchadefendant[asGuzman]istobedistinguishedfrom % ! adefendantwhocommencesdrugtreatmentandthereafterfaltersbyviolatingconditions &!" ofprobation.(109_Cal.App_.4thatp.350.) '"# SeealsoPeoplev.Johnson(2003)114_Cal.App_.4th284,holdingthataparanoid )$% schizophrenicdefendantwho repeatedlyviolatedherprobationbyfailingtoreporttothe *%& probationofficerandbyneverenrollinginthecourt-ordereddrugprogramwas +&' ineligibleundersection1210.1(b)(4).(Thecourtdidnotdiscusswhetherthevotersin  enactingProp.36reallyintendedtosendschizophrenicstoprison.)  IllegalImmigrationStatus  Whilethereisnoexplicitstatutorybasisforexcludingillegalaliens,theFirstDistrict   findsthat thestrongprobabilitythatdefendantwillbedeportedbeforehecansatisfythe   drugtreatmentconditionofhisprobationwouldentirelyfrustratetheobjectivesof   Proposition36.Peoplev._Espinoza_(2003)107_Cal.App_.4th1069.   PleaBargains   InPeoplev._Chatmon_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th771,defendantpleadednocontesttoa   chargeofcocainepossession.Inexchangefordroppingotherchargesandreceivingnon   Prop36probationinsteadofjailtime,defendantagreedtowaivehisrighttoappeal.  Subsequently,defendantsprobationwasrevokedforfailingtoconformwithanumberof  probationconditions.Defendantappealed,claimingthatheshouldhavebeensentenced  toProp36probationinthefirstplace.TheFirstDistrictwasunpersuadedanddisposed  ofhischallengeinthefollowingmanner: _Chatmon_Ԁdid...receivethebenefitof  probationanddismissalofachargethat,wereheconvicted,wouldhavedisqualifiedhim  fromtreatmentunderProposition36.(PenalCode,1210.1,_subd_.(b)(2).)Aspartofthe  bargain,heagreedtowaivehisrighttoappeal.Now,havingviolatedhisprobation,he  appealsfromtheensuingjudgment,askingustorecastthetermsofhispleabargain.We  willnotentertainsucharequest.(Peoplev._Chatmon_,supra,129_Cal.App_.4thatp.  773.)  APrisonSentenceinAnotherCase  InPeoplev._Esparza_Ԁ(2003)107_Cal.App_.4th691,theThirdDistrictheldthatacourt   imposingaprisonsentenceinanon-drugcasewasnotrequiredtograntProp36 ! probationinthedrugcase: Defendanthad,throughhisprisonsentenceforthevandalism " case,becomeunabletoparticipateinthoseprogramsortocomplywithmandatory # probationconditions....Weconcludethatadefendantisunamenablewhenheis $  unavailabletoparticipateinProposition36programswithinthestatutorytimeperiods %!! becauseofhisprisonsentence.(Id.at699.) &"" PriorsThatHaveNotWashedOut ($$ Prop36partiallyoverridestheThreeStrikeslaw,whichbarsprobationforanyonewitha *&&  strikeprior,nomatterhowoldthepriormaybe.(667(c)(2).)UnderProp36, +'' probationcanbegrantedtoanotherwiseeligibledefendantifhisstrikepriorisold  enough.Specifically,ifthenew_NDPO_Ԁoccurs afteraperiodoffiveyearsinwhichthe  defendantremainedfreeofbothprisoncustodyandthecommissionofanoffensethat  resultsin(A)afelonyconvictionotherthana_NDPO_,or(B)amisdemeanorconviction  involvingphysicalinjuryorthethreatofphysicalinjurytoanotherperson(  1210.1(b)(1)),heiseligibleforProp36probation.   However,thefivecleanyearsmustimmediatelyprecedethe_NDPO_.Itisnotenoughto   haveanyfivecleanyearsfollowingthestrikeconviction:Peoplev.SuperiorCourt   (Martinez)(2002)104_Cal.App_.4th692;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(_Henkel_)(2002)98   _Cal.App_.4th78;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Turner)(2002)97_Cal.App_.4th1222(relying   inpartonthepromisewhichtheLegislativeAnalystmadeintheballotlanguage,thatno   seriousorviolentfelonwouldgetprobationunlesss/hewasfreeofcustodyornew   offenses duringthefiveyearsbeforeheorshecommitteda_NDPO_);andPeoplev.   SuperiorCourt(Jefferson)(2002)97_Cal.App_.4th530.  However,ifthedefendantneverwenttoprisonfollowingthestrikeconviction,doesthe  washoutperiodstartatthetimetheprioroffensewascommitted?Orisitwashedout  regardlessofhowmuchtimehaspassed?Peoplev.Johnson(2003)114_Cal.App_.4th284  294,inaveryunclearpassage,suggeststhatiftherewasnocustody,thereisno  disqualifyingstrikeprior.  SomestrikepriorsdonotdisqualifyadefendantforProp36,regardlessofwashout:  UndertheThreeStrikeslaw,somejuvenileoffensescountasstrikes.(667(d)(3).)  However,underProp.36adefendantisdisqualifiedonlyifs/he hasbeenconvictedof  oneormoreseriousorviolentfeloniesinviolationofsubdivision(c)ofsection667.5or  section1192.7.(1210.1(b)(1).)  Ajuvenileoffense,evenifitisastrike,isnotaconviction.Thus,itdoesnotbara   defendantfromProp36eligibility.Thereisnoneedtoworryaboutmeetingthewashout ! requirementinsuchacase.(Peoplev._Westbrook_Ԁ(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th378.) "  8.WhofindsthefactsthatmakeadefendanteligibleorineligibleforProp36?  $    TransportationForPersonalUse &!" A_NDPO_Ԁmaybe transportationforpersonaluse.(1210(a).)However,thereisno (#$ suchoffenseintheHealthandSafetyCode.Transportationoffensesdonotdistinguish )$% betweentransportationforpersonaluseandforsale.Soaconvictionfor transportation *%& doesnotinitselfanswerthequestionofProp36eligibility. +&' ЇInPeoplev.Dove(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th1,ajuryacquitteddefendantonthechargeof  possessionforsale.Nevertheless,atsentencing,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedrugswere  notforpersonaluseandhelddefendantineligibleforProp36probation.TheFourth  Districtheldthat neither_Apprendi_Ԁnor_Blakely_Ԁprohibitedthetrialcourtfromdeciding,  basedonthepreponderanceoftheevidence,whetherdefendantspossessionor  transportationwasforpersonaluseforpurposesofProposition36.(Id.atp.11.)   Inreachingthisconclusion,thecourtreliedonPeoplev._Glasper_Ԁ(2003)113_Cal.App_.4th   1104andPeoplev._Barasa_Ԁ(2002)103_Cal.App_.4th287.   In_Glasper_,defendantswereacquittedofpossessionforsalebutconvictedofsimple   possessionandtransportation.Theyarguedthatthejurysverdictwasbindingonthetrial   court,whichcouldnotdenythemProp36treatmentbyfindingthatthetransportationwas   reallyforsale.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthejurywasnotrequiredtofindthefacts   regardingeligibility;thejudgewasfreetomakethefindings.Thefacts(here,  transportationforsale)donothavetobepledandproven,under_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey  (2000)530U.S.466: _Apprendi_Ԁdoesnotapplyherebecausetheissueconcernsa  sentencingprovisionwhichlightens,ratherthanincreases,punishmentforcrime.  (QuotingPeoplev._Barasa_Ԁ(2002)103_Cal.App_.4th287,294.)  _Barasa_Ԁheldthat_Apprendi_ԀdoesnotapplytoProp36eligibilityfindings,becauseProp36  doesnotinvolveasentencingenhancement.ItrejectedtheargumentthatProp36created  anoffenseoftransportationforpersonaluse,with notforpersonaluseconstitutinga  sentencingenhancement.   9.Whohastheburdenofproofastothosefacts?   Lookingatthestatutorylanguage,_Barasa_Ԁfoundthatthedefendanthadtheburdenof  prooftoshowthatthetransportationwasforpersonaluse.(_Evid_.Code500:"Exceptas   otherwiseprovidedbylaw,apartyhastheburdenofproofastoeachfacttheexistenceor ! nonexistenceofwhichisessentialtotheclaimforreliefordefensethatheisasserting... " .") # Peoplev.Atwood(2003)110_Cal.App_.4th805distinguished_Barasa_Ԁwhenthefindings % ! wereaboutwhetheraprobationviolationwasdrugrelated,ratherthanaboutwhethera &!" defendantmettheinitialeligibilitycriteria. Here,thePeoplewanttosenddefendantto '"# prison.Inordertosatisfythestatutorycriteria,theyhavetoshowthatatleastone (#$ conditionofprobationviolatedwasnotdrug-related.Thatfactisessentialtotheclaim )$% forrelief...that[thePeople]areasserting.(_Evid_.Code,500.) *%&  +&' Oa    Thedifferencebetween_Barasa_Ԁandthiscaseisthis:in_Barasa_,defendantwasseekinga  grantofprobationandwasthereforeassertingaclaimforreliefwithinthemeaningof  EvidenceCodesection500.Intheinstantcase,thePeopleareseekingarevocationof  probationandincarcerationandarethereforeassertingaclaimforreliefwithinthe  meaningofthesameEvidenceCodesection.(Peoplev.Atwood,supra,110  _Cal.App_.4thatp.810.)    10.Canthetrialcourtstrikedisqualifyingfactsundersection1385?      No.TheSupremeCourthasheldthat trialcourtsmaynotusesection1385todisregard    sentencingfactorsthatarenotthemselvesrequiredtobeachargeorallegationinan   indictmentorinformation.(Inre_Varnell_Ԁ(2003)30Cal.4th1132,1135.)   In_Varnell_,thedefendantwaschargedwithadrugpossessionoffenseandwithastrike   priorwhichwoulddisqualifyhimforProp36treatment.(Thepriorwasnotoldenough   tohavewashedoutunder1210.1(b)(1).)Thetrialcourtstruckthepriorforpurposesof  theThreeStrikeslaw!butnonethelessfoundthatthefactofthepriorconviction  rendereddefendantineligibleforProp36.  TheSupremeCourtupheldthisreasoning.Section1385,itheld,maybeusedtodismiss  sentencingallegationswhichmustbepledandproven.Butthefactswhichmakea  defendantineligibleforProp36donothavetobepledandproven;theydonotincrease  themaximumsentenceforanoffense(cf._Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466)  andtheydonotevenmakeadefendantabsolutelyineligibleforprobation. Arulingthat  section1385couldbeusedtodisregardsentencingfactors,which...arenotincludedas  offensesorallegationsinanaccusatorypleadingwouldbeunprecedented.(Inre  _Varnell_,supra,30Cal.4thatp.1137.)Besides,itwouldbeinconsistentwiththeintentof  thevoters.(Id.atp.1143-1144.)   11.Maycourtsunilaterallyforcedefendantstowaivestatutorilyrequiredcustody ! creditsfortimespentinaProp36drugtreatmentprogram? "  Yes.Peoplev._Thurman_Ԁ(2005)125_Cal.App_.4th1453heldthatthecourthasthe $  discretiontoincludesuchaterminthedefendantsprobationconditions.Accordingto % ! theCourt, Proposition36offersnonviolentdrugoffenderstheopportunityto &!" participateinastructureddrugtreatmentprograminlieuofincarceration(_Esparza_, '"# supra,107_Cal.App_.4thatp.696),ifthedefendantsubmitstoreasonableprobation (#$ limitationsimposedbythetrialcourt.Itdoesnoteliminatethedefendantsrighttoreject )$% thisopportunityanddeclineprobationifheorshefindsthetermsandconditionstobetoo *%& onerousorintolerable.([Citations.])AsthePeoplepointout,defendanthadthechoice +&' ofacceptingthewaiverofcustodycreditsconditionandavoidingaprisonsentenceor  rejectingtheconditionandbeingincarcerated.Defendantchosetoacceptprobationon  thetermsdictatedbythetrialcourt,andhedoesnotclaimthathiswaiverofcustody  creditswasnotknowingandintelligent.Consequently,forthereasonsstatedabove,the  trialcourtdidnoterrinrequiringdefendantasaconditionofprobationtowaivecustody  creditsfortimespentinaresidentialdrugtreatmentprogram.    12.Retroactivity:WhendoesProp36eligibilitykickin?    Peoplev.Floyd(2003)31Cal.4th179:Prop36'srighttoaninitialgrantofprobationis    availableonlytodefendantsnotyetsentencedonJuly1,2001.Itisnotavailabletoa   personwhohasbeensentenced,butwhoseconvictionisnotyetfinalonappeal,bythat   date.   Normally,underInre_Estrada_Ԁ(1965)63Cal.2d740,whentheLegislatureorthevoters   acttoreduceacriminalpunishment,thecourtswillpresumethattheyintendedtoapply  theameliorativemeasureretroactively.Thismeans,atleast,thatanyonewhose  convictionisnotyetfinalonappealgetsthebenefitoftheameliorativemeasure.  Butthispresumptiononlyhaseffectifthereisnosavingsclause.Prop36didhavea  savingsclauseinits_uncodified_Ԁsection8.( Exceptasotherwiseprovided,theprovisions  ofthisactshallbecomeeffectiveJuly1,2001,anditsprovisionsshallbeapplied  prospectively.)TheSupremeCourtheldinFloydthat prospectivelymeantthatthe  draftersintendedtoavoidthe_Estrada_Ԁrule!andthat,therefore,Prop36couldnotbe  extendedtoallpersonswhoseconvictionsarenotyetfinalonappeal.  Noristhereanyequalprotectionproblem,theCourtheld,inlettingpeoplelikeTommy  Lee_Fryman_Ԁ(formerlyat97_Cal.App_.4th1315)do25-lifeforanoffensewhichwould  havegottenhimmandatoryprobation,hadhebeensentencedalittlelater.   However,theSupremeCourthasleftstandingthosecaseswhichheldthatadefendant " whoisconvictedbeforeJuly1,2001,butnotsentenceduntilafterthatdate,isentitledto # Prop36treatment:Inre_DeLong_Ԁ(2001)93_Cal.App_.4th562[forpurposesofProp36 $  eligibility, convictedmeansfoundguiltyandsentenced,soadefendantnotyet % ! sentencedon7/1/01hasnotyetbeen convicted];Inre_Scoggins_(2001)94_Cal.App_.4th &!" 650[same]. '"# TheCourthasalsoleftstandingacaseholdingthecontrary.Peoplev.Mendoza(2003) )$% 106_Cal.App_.4th1030(rev.den.5/14/03)heldthat convictionmeansonlyadjudication *%& ofguilt.Adefendantwhohasbeenfoundguilty,butnotyetsentenced,asofJuly1, +&' 2001,is convictedbeforethekick-indate,andisthereforeineligibleforProp36.   13.Anotherequalprotectionproblem:probationersvs.parolees.   Adefendantwhoviolatesprobationbycommittinga_NDPO_,butwhoseoriginal  convictionisforsomeotherfelony(orwhowasadditionallyconvictedofadisqualifying   misdemeanor),isnoteligibleforProp36'smandatorysecondandthirdchancesas   outlinedinsection1210.1(e).Subdivision(e)setsoutthescopeoftherighttocontinued   probation,intheeventofdrugrelatedviolations!butitappliesonlytothosedefendants   whoinitiallyreceivedprobationundersubdivision(a).Inotherwords,itappliesonlyto    thosedefendantsonprobationfora_NDPO_.Adefendantwhoisonregularprobation,   undersection1203,forsomeotheroffenseisnotcoveredbysubdivision(e).(See,e.g.,   Peoplev._Esparza_Ԁ(2003)107_Cal.App_.4th691,697.)   However,aparoleewhoseinitialoffenseisnota_NDPO_,andwhoviolatesparoleby   committingadrugrelatedoffense,isentitledtoafewmorechances.Theparoleviolation  rulesaresetoutinsection3063.1(d)(3).Theschemedoesnotexactlyparallelthe  probationviolationschemeofsection1210.1(e),butitdoesgivetheparoleeatleastone  secondchancebeforehemaybereimprisoned.  Isthereanequalprotectionviolationhere?WhiletheSixthDistrictthoughttherewas,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourtrecentlyweighedinonthisissueanddecidedotherwise.  InPeoplev.Guzman(2005)35Cal.4th577,593,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheld that  withrespecttotheAct'slegitimatepurposes...,aprobationerlikedefendant,who  commitsan_NDPO_Ԁwhilestillonprobationforanon-_NDPO_,isnotsimilarlysituatedtoa  paroleewhocommitsan_NDPO_Ԁaftercompletingaprisontermforthenon-_NDPO_.  Defendant'sequalprotectionclaimthereforefails.  Insupportofthisholding,theCourtdistinguishedprobationfromparoleinthefollowing ! manner: Itistruethatforpurposesofdeterminingtheirinitialeligibilityformandatory " probationundertheAct,suchprobationersandparoleesaresimilarlysituated;bothhave # committedandbeenconvictedofanon-_NDPO_Ԁthatrenderedthemineligibleforsuch $  mandatoryprobation.However,forpurposesofendingtheirineligibility,theyarenot % ! similarlysituated.Aspreviouslyexplained,paroleeshavehadsentenceimposedand &!" havecompletedtheprisontermsprescribedbylawfortheirnon-_NDPO_.Inotherwords, '"# theyhaveservedtheirtimeinprisonforthenon-_NDPO_'s.[Citation]Probationershave (#$ not;asexplainedabove,theyhavehadimpositionorexecutionofsentencesuspendedand )$% havebeengivenanopportunitytoavoidservingtheirtimeinprisonbycompletinga *%& periodofconditionalreleaseinthecommunityinlieuoftheprisontermsprescribedby +&' lawfortheirunderlyingconvictions.(Ibid.,italicsinoriginal.)  Parole,accordingtotheCourt,ismandatoryfromtheoffenderspointofviewand  separatefromtheoffendersprisonterm.Probation,ontheotherhand,isvoluntaryand  operatesasasubstituteforaprisonterm.Asaresult,suchoffendersarenotsimilarly  situated,arequiredfindingtoproceedwithanequalprotectionargument.    III.PROPOSEDLEGISLATIVEAMENDMENTSTOPROP36    Asoutlinedabove,sinceProp36passedin2000withsupportfrom61%ofthestatewide    electorate,byandlargethecourtshavestrictlyconstruedthemeasuretolimitits   applicabilitytoarathernarrowclassofdrugoffenders.Asaresult,manyindividuals   convictedof_NDPOs_Ԁcontinuetofaceincarcerationinsteadofthetreatmentprograms   availabletooffenderswhoaredeemedeligibleforProp36probation.Despiteitsrather   circumscribedreach,oppositioninthelegislaturetoProp36'sprohibitiononthe   impositionofjailtimefor_NDPOs_Ԁappearstobegainingsteam.Interestsgroupsonboth  sidesofthedebatehavelinedupinsupportandinoppositionoftheproposedlegislative  amendmentstoProp36.   1.SenateBill803   SenateBill803( SB803"),sponsoredbySenatorDeniseMoreno_Ducheny_,was  introducedonFebruary22,2005.Currently,thebillisawaitingahearingdatebeforethe  PublicSafetyCommitteeintheAssembly.BecausetheSubstanceAbuseandCrime  PreventionActwasenactedbyvirtueofavoteradoptedballotmeasureProp362/3  approvalofbothhousesofthelegislatureisrequiredtoamendit.Inaddition,all  amendmentstoitmustfurthertheActandbeconsistentwithitspurposes.  SB803proposesseveralmajorchangestoProp36.   SB803WillProvideCourtsWiththeDiscretiontoImposeJailTime " Mostnotably,andmostcontroversially,SB803proposestoincorporatetheuseoflimited $  termsofincarcerationtoeffectuatethegoalsofProp36.Initsoriginalform,SB803 % ! soughttoprovidejudgeswiththediscretiontoimposejailtimeasaninitialconditionof &!" probation.Thebillhassincebeenamended.Althoughitnolongerallowsforjailtimeas '"# aninitialconditionofprobation,thecurrentversionofthebill(lastamendedon8/18/05) (#$ doescontemplateincarcerationinthecountyjailforuptothirtydaysas atoolto )$% enhancetreatmentcompliancefollowingcertainprobationviolations.(Proposed *%& sec.1210.1(f)(2)(3).)Inaddition,undercertaincircumstances,thenewversionofthe +&' Actwouldauthorizethecourtto orderthatthedefendantbeconfinedinacountyjailfor  detoxificationpurposesonly,ifthejailoffersdetoxificationservices,foraperiodnotto  exceed10days.(Ibid.)  Essentially,theseprovisionsofthelegislationareintendedtorestoretojudgesthe  discretiontheylostunderProp36toincarcerateindividualsconvictedofnonviolentdrug   possessionoffenseswithoutwaitingfortheoffendertocommitthreeseparateProp36   probationviolations.Therationale,accordingtothebillssupporters,isthatmany   offenderswillnottakeseriouslytherequireddrugtreatmentprogramswithoutthethreat   ofjailtimeforcompliancefailures.   MorethananyotherprovisioninSB803,empoweringcourtstoimposejailtermsfor   _NDPOs_Ԁmayfacethemostdifficultysurvivingachallengebasedonvoterintent.Itseems   fromthetextofProp36thatvotersexpressedaclearoppositiontosuchanauthorization.   And,asnotedabove,Prop36requiresallfutureamendmentstoremainconsistentwithits  statedpurposes.  SB803Redefines SuccessfulCompletionofTreatment  OneofthemainbenefitsofProp36probationisthatifthedefendantsuccessfully  completestherequiredtreatmentprogram,thechargesagainsthimorheraredismissed.  Expungementoftheoffenderscriminalrecordisaprimemotivationtotakethe  mandatorytreatmentprogramsseriously.  UnderProp36today,successismeasuredbywhetheraftercompletingatreatment  programthereisreasonablecausetobelievethatthedefendantwillnotabusecontrolled  substancesinthefuture.IfSB803weretopass,thenewlawwoulddeemtreatment  successfulifthedefendanthas completedtheproscribedcourseofdrugtreatmentas  recommendedbythetreatmentproviderandorderedbythecourt.(Proposedsec.   1210(c).)Furthermore, [_c]ompletion_Ԁoftreatmentshallnotrequirecessationofnarcotic ! replacementtherapy.(Ibid.) " Inaddition,thecurrentversionofProp36permitsdefendantstoseekdismissalofcharges $  uponsuccessfulcompletionofdrugtreatmentandsubstantialcompliancewiththegeneral %!! termsofprobation.(Sec.1210.1(d)(1).) &"" Underthenewversion,thecourthastomakeafindingthatthedefendanthas ($$ substantiallycompliedwiththetermsofhisorherprobation, includingrefrainingfrom )%% theuseofdrugsaftercompletionoftreatment.(Proposedsec.1210.1(e)(1).) *&&  +'' SB803MayExcludeFromEligibilityIndividualsWhoHaveServedThreePriorPrison  TermsForNonDrugRelatedFelonies  Undertherevisedstatute,thecourtmayexcludefromProp36eligibilityany defendant  whohaspreviouslybeenconvictedofatleastthreenondrugrelatedfeloniesforwhich  thedefendanthasservedthreeseparateprisontermswithinthemeaningofsubdivision   (b)ofSection667.5ofthePenalCodeifthecourtfindsthat thedefendantposesa   presentdangertothesafetyofothersandwouldnotbenefitfromadrugtreatment   program.(Proposedsec.1210.1(c).)   SB803RemovesFromEligibilityIndividualsInPossessionofDeadlyWeaponsWhile   UndertheInfluenceoforinPossessionofCertainDrugs   Currently,Prop36excludesfromeligibilityanyonefoundtobeunlawfullyunderthe   influenceofcertaincontrolledsubstances [_w]hile_Ԁusingafirearm.(Sec.  1210.1(b)(3)(B).)  TherevisedversionofProp36seekstoexcludefromeligibilityanyonewho while  armedwithadeadlyweaponunlawfullypossesses,orisundertheinfluenceofcertain  controlledsubstances.(Proposedsec.1210.1(b)(4).)  Althoughthenumberofwordschangedinthisinstanceisminimal,thisrevision  substantiallyaltersthissubsection.First,itreplacestheword firearmwiththebroader  phrase deadlyweapon.Second,ittargetsnotthemoreserioususeofaweapon,butthe  possessionofoneinstead.Third,therelevantinquirywouldnolongerbelimitedto  whethertheindividualwasundertheinfluenceofdrugs;rather,goingforward,mere  possessionwouldsatisfythisstatutoryexclusion.  SB803AddsMandatoryDrugTesting   SB803wouldrequiremandatorydrugtestingforallProp36participants.(Proposedsec. " 1210.1(a).) # SB803AuthorizesDOCtoExtendtheLengthofMandatoryDrugTreatmentforParolees %!! Initscurrentform,withrespecttoparolees,Prop36provides: Drugtreatmentservices '## providedbysubdivision(a)asarequiredconditionofparolemaynotexceed12months, ($$ provided,however,thatadditionalaftercareservicesasaconditionofparolemaybe )%% requiredforuptosixmonths.(Sec.3063.1(c)(3).) *&&  +'' TherevisedversionofProp36wouldprovidethefollowing: Drugtreatmentservices  providedbysubdivision(a)asarequiredconditionofparolemaynotexceed12months,  unlesstheDepartmentofCorrectionsParoleDivisionmakesafindingsupportedbythe  recordthatthecontinuationoftreatmentservicesbeyond12monthsisnecessaryfordrug  treatmenttobesuccessful.Ifthatfindingismade,theDepartmentofCorrectionsParole  Divisionmayorderuptotwosix-monthextensionsoftreatmentservices.Theprovision   oftreatmentservicesunderthisactshallnotexceed24months.   SB803IncreasesAnnualFundingForProp36   SB803woulduptheannualfundingfortheadministrationofProp36from$60,000,000   to$120,000,000.(ProposedH&Ssec.11999.5)   SB803DeclaresItsProvisionstobeSeverableFromOneAnother   SB803declares: Theprovisionsofthisactareseverable.Ifanyprovisionofthisactor  itsapplicationisheldinvalidbecauseithasnotbeenapprovedbythevoters,thatsection  shallbeputbeforethevotersoftheStateofCaliforniainthenextavailableelection.  SB803HasDrawntheSupportandOppositionofNumerousInstitutions  AccordingtothelegislativeanalysispreparedbytheAssemblysPublicSafety  Committee,SB803hasdrawnthesupportofthefollowinginstitutions:  AmericanFederationofState,CountyandMunicipalEmployees  AsianAmericanDrugAbuseProgram  CaliforniaAssociationofAlcoholandDrugProgramExecutive,Inc.  CaliforniaDistrictAttorneysAssociation  CaliforniaJudgesAssociation   CaliforniaNarcoticsOfficers'Association ! CaliforniaPeaceOfficers'Association " CaliforniaPoliceChiefsAssociation # CaliforniaPublicDefendersAssociation $  ChiefProbationOfficersofCalifornia %!! CityofElMontePoliceDepartment &"" CityofGlendalePoliceDepartment '## Cityof_Manteca_ԀPoliceDepartment ($$ CityofNationalCityPoliceDepartment )%% CityofPalmSprings *&& CountyAlcoholandDrugProgramAdministratorsAssociationofCalifornia +'' CountyofSanBenitoProbationDepartment  Countyof_Tulare_ԀProbationDepartment  James_Markunas_ԀSociety  LivermorePoliceDepartment  SanBernardinoCountySheriffsDepartment  _Solano_ԀCountyBoardofSupervisors   120privatecitizens   AccordingtothelegislativeanalysispreparedbytheAssemblysPublicSafety   Committee,SB803hasdrawntheoppositionofthefollowinginstitutions:   Ѐ   AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion   CaliforniaAttorneysforCriminalJustice   CaliforniaMedicalAssociation   DrugPolicyAllianceNetwork  FriendsCommitteeonLegislationofCalifornia  ProgressiveChristianUniting  519PrivateCitizens  AcomprehensivearticulationoftheargumentsagainsttheoriginalversionofSB803,  whichhassincebeenamendedonanumberofoccasions,canbefoundat:  http://_www.drugpolicy.org_/_docUploads_/_Ducheny_opposition_letter.pdf_   2.SenateBill556   AnalternativesetofrevisionstoProp36arefoundinSenatorCarole_Migden_sbill,SB  556.UnlikeSB803,whichseekstoaddincarcerationtoProp36asacompliancetool,  SB556focusesmoreonrefiningProp36'streatmentprovisionsandwouldcontinueProp   36'sprohibitionagainsttheimpositionofjailtogaincompliance. ! ItshouldbenotedthatSB556,todate,hasnotgainedasmuchmomentuminthe # legislatureasSB803.AsofJanuary10,2005,SB556islistedasinactive. $  SB556DoesNotAutomaticallyExcludeIndividualsWhoViolateProp36Probation &!" ThreeTimes '"# PerhapsthemostnovelaspectofSB556isthatitreplacesthecurrentlanguagemaking )$% revocationmandatoryafterathirdviolationofProp36probation. *%&  +&' Instead,SB556includesthefollowingdiscretionarylanguage: Ifadefendantreceives  probationundersubdivision(a),andforthethirdtimeorsubsequenttimeviolatesthat  probationeitherbycommittinganonviolentdrugpossessionoffense,orbyviolatinga  drug-relatedconditionofprobation,andthestatemovesforathirdtimetorevoke  probation,thecourtshallconductahearingtodeterminewhetherprobationshallbe  revoked.Iftheallegedprobationviolationisproved,thecourtmayintensifyoralterthe   drugtreatmentplan,ormayfindthatthedefendantisnolongereligibleforcontinued   probationundersubdivision(a).(Proposedsec.1210(e)(3)(C).)   SB556AddsEligibilityProtectionsforIndividualswithMentalHealthDisorders   SB556seekstoaddthefollowingstatementregardingtheeligibilityofindividuals   sufferingfrommentaldisorders: Nopersonshallbedeniedtheopportunitytobenefit   fromtheprovisionsofthissectionbasedsolelyonevidenceofaco-occurringpsychiatric   disorder.(Proposedsec.1210.1(a).)  ThisprovisionappearstobeproposedlegislativeresponsetoPeoplev.Johnson,supra,  114_Cal.App_.4th284,which,asdiscussedabove,heldaparanoidschizophrenic  individualtobeineligibleforProp36probationbecauseofrepeatedfailurestoreportto  theirprobationofficerandcourtordereddrugtreatmentprogram.   x       `     h SB556Redefines SuccessfulCompletionofTreatment  UnderProp36today,successismeasuredbywhetheraftercompletingatreatment  programthereisreasonablecausetobelievethatthedefendantwillnotabusecontrolled  substancesinthefuture.IfSB556weretopass,thenewlawwoulddeemtreatment  successfulifthedefendantsimplyhas completedtheproscribedcourseofdrug  treatment.(Proposedsec.1210(c).)  Prop36,aspassedbythevoters,didnotexpresslycontemplatenarcoticsreplacement ! treatment. " SB556alsospecifiestheconditionsunderwhichadefendantundergoingnarcotics $  replacementtreatmentwouldbedeemedtohavesuccessfullycompletedtreatment. %!! UnderSB556: Inordertodismissthechargingdocumentofadefendantundergoing &"" narcoticsreplacementtreatment,thecourtshalldeemthatthedefendanthassuccessfully '## completedtreatmentifheorshehasbeenparticipatinginanappropriateprogramorhas ($$ beentreatedbyaphysicianforatleastthreemonths,andtheprogramorphysicianreports )%% adequatecompliancewithallelementsofthedefendant'streatmentprogram.Fundingfor *&& thatdefendant'streatmentmaycontinueforupto18monthsevenifthecharging +'' documentisdismissed.(Proposedsec.1210.1(d)(1)(B).)  SB556AuthorizesAdditionalTreatmentandAftercare  Underthecurrentlaw,drugtreatmentservicesarecappedat12monthsandaftercare  cappedat6months.      `     h      p     UnderSB556, [_d]rug_Ԁtreatmentservicesprovidedbysubdivision(a)asarequired   conditionofprobationmaynotexceed12months,unlessthecourtfindsthatthe   continuationoftreatmentservicesbeyond12monthsisnecessaryfordrugtreatmenttobe   successful.Ifacourtmakesthatfinding,thecourtmayorderuptotwoextensionsof   probationandthecontinuationoftreatmentandaftercareforuptoanadditionalsix   months.Theperiodoftreatmentandaftercareshallnotexceed24months.(Proposed   sec.1210.1(c)(3))Similarextensionsareauthorizedforparoleesaswell.(Proposedsec.   3063.1(c)(3).)  SB556SeeksGreaterFinancialAccountability  SB556wouldprohibitacountyfromspendingmorethan25%ofitsallocationoncosts  associatedwithcriminaljusticeactivities,unlessthecountycandemonstratehowsuchan  expenditurewouldfurtherthepurposesoftheActandimprovetreatmentoutcomes.  (ProposedH&Ssec.11999.6(b)(1).)  SB556HasDrawntheSupportandOppositionofNumerousInstitutions  AccordingtothelegislativeanalysispreparedbytheSenateHealthCommittee,SB556  hasdrawnthesupportofthefollowinginstitutions:  CaliforniaNursesAssociation   CaliforniaPublicDefendersAssociation ! DrugPolicyAllianceNetwork " ProtectionandAdvocacy,Inc. # AccordingtothelegislativeanalysispreparedbytheSenateHealthCommittee,SB556 %!! hasdrawntheoppositionofthefollowinginstitutions: &"" CaliforniaNarcoticOfficers ($$ CaliforniaPeaceOfficersAssociation )%% CaliforniaProbation,ParoleandCorrectionalAssociation *&& CaliforniaStateAssociationofCounties +'' CaliforniaStateSheriffs'Association  ChiefProbationOfficersofCalifornia   IV.DRUGCOURTS   Whenfirstintroduced,SB803includedthefollowinglegislativefinding:   Drugdependentcriminaloffenderswhoreceivedrugtreatmentarefarmore   likelytocompletethedrugtreatmentprogramiftheyaremonitoredand   supervisedbycourtsthatusethedrugcourtmodelthroughdedicated    calendarsandincludearegimenofgraduatedsanctionsandrewards,close   collaborationbetweenthecourt,treatmentprovidersandprobation,drug   testingcommensuratewithtreatmentneeds,andappropriatecourt   monitoringandsupervisionofprogressthroughfrequentreviewhearings.   u|uAlthoughthislanguagehassincebeenremovedfromthebill,itsunderlyingsentimentin  favorofthedrugcourtmodelisrepresentativeofthatmodelsgrowingsupport,  particularlyamonglegislators,judges,andprosecutors.Notwithstandingthevoter  supportforrehabilitationoverincarcerationembodiedbythepassageofProp36many  observersofandparticipantsinthecriminaljusticesystemcontinuetofavorarmingthe  courtswiththethreatofincarcerationasatoolforforcingcompliancewithdrug  treatmentprogramsaimedatovercomingaddictionandrelatedcriminalbehavior.  WhatisDrugCourt? #  3        Drugcourtspresideovercasesinvolvingsubstanceabuse:rangingfromdrugcrimesto  nondrugcrimesthatareconsideredtobeaproductoftheoffendersdruguse.Because  drugcourtsaregenerallyrunatthecountylevel,thetypesofcasesandremediesthat  characterizedrugcourtsaroundthenationvarygreatly.Ingeneral,though,drugcourts   tendtocombinecourtsupervision,drugtesting,treatmentservices,sanctions(including ! incarceration),andincentives. " Somedrugcourtsoperateinacollaborativefashion,bringingtogetherjudges, $  prosecutors,defensecounsel,substanceabusetreatmentspecialists,probationofficers, % ! lawenforcementandcorrectionalpersonnel,educationalandvocationalexperts, &!" communityleadersandotherstodealwiththeoffenderandhisorhersubstanceabuse  problem.  DrugCourtsinCalifornia  AlamedaCountyopenedthefirstdrugcourtinCaliforniain1991.Today,thereareover   200drugcourtsinthestate.TheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholandDrugPrograms,a   governmentagencythatprovidesfundingandassistancetodrugcourtsthroughoutthe   state,espousesthefollowingmissionstate:   ! ! [LMNOPQRSV(xy[LMNOPQRSV"L3"  L323  0    Reducedrugusageandrecidivism;L3@݌ (#(# Ќ  "L3"  L323  0    Providecourtsupervisedtreatment;L3݌ (#(# Ќ  "L3"  L3Ã23  0    Offerthecapabilitytointegratedrugtreatmentwithotherrehabilitationservicesto   promotelongtermrecoveryandreducesocialcosts;andL3Ã݌ (#(# Ќ  "L3"  L323  0    AccessfederalandStatesupportforlocaldrugcourts.L3H݌(#(# Ќ  ThemajorityofdrugcourtsinCaliforniaareforadultoffenders,butvariouscounties  aroundthestatealsorundrugcourtsthatspecializeinjuvenileanddependencycases.  Therearefourmajormodels #  4      ׀forthestatesdrugcourts:  (1)Perpleamodelsafforddrugpossessionoffendersastayofprosecutionifthey  participateincourtsupervisedtreatment.Uponsuccessfulcompletionofthedrugcourt  program,theparticipantisdischargedwithoutacriminalrecord.However,failureto  completetheprogramleadstothefilingofchargesandadjudication,therebysubjecting  theparticipanttoincarcerationafteronlyonprogramviolation.  (2)Postpleamodelsrequireadefendanttoenteraguiltypleabeforeenteringtreatment.  Treatmentisfromninemonthstothreeyears.Liketheprepleamodel,uponsuccessful   completionofthedrugcourtprogram,theparticipantisdischargedwithoutacriminal ! record.However,alsoliketheprepleamodel,failuretocompletetheprogramleadsto " thefilingofchargesandadjudication,therebysubjectingtheparticipanttoincarceration # afteronlyonprogramviolation. $  (3)Postadjudicationmodelsallowrepeatdrugoffenderstoentertreatmentaftertheir &"" convictionbutpriortoservingtheirsentence.Successfulcompletionofthedrugcourt '## programallowstheseoffenderstoservetheirsentenceintreatmentinsteadofcustody.  Unliketheprevioustwomodels,however,successfulcompletionoftreatmentdoesnot  leadtoadismissaloftheunderlyingcharges.And,failuretocompletetheprogramleads  directlytotheactivationoftheirsentence.  (4)Civilmodelsallowindividualsincivilactions(usuallychildcustody)toenter   treatmentasaconditionofretainingorregainingcustodyoftheirchild(_ren_).Failureto   completetheprogramleadstoapermanentlossofcustody.        V.CONCLUSION    Whenenacted,theprovisionsofProp36representedanovelwayofcopingwith   substanceabuseandassociatedcriminalactivities:rehabilitationoutsidetheconfinesofa   jailorprison.Notonlydidtheresultinglegislationforbidcourtsfromincarcerating   eligibleoffenders,butitalsomandatedstayingthiscourseinthefaceofvariousprogram   violations.  Drugcourtsalsopresentauniqueapproachtohandlingsubstanceabuserelatedoffenses  andoffenders.Drugcourtsoffertreatmentprogramsasanalternativetotraditional  criminalsentences,backedupbyathreatofincarcerationshouldtheparticipantfailto  complywiththetermsimposedbythecourt.Thedrugcourtmodelhasbecome  increasinglypopular,bothnationwideandthroughoutCalifornia.  Asaresult,thereisamovementafootintheCaliforniaLegislaturetoinfuseProp36with  elementsofthedrugcourtmodel,mostnotablytheprospectofincarcerationforprogram  relatedfailures.  ThepassageofProp36,however,sentaclearmessage:inthecontextofnonviolentdrug  possessionoffenses,thepeopleofthestateofCaliforniaprefertoaddressthis   constituencyoutsideofjailsandprisons. ! GiventhelimitingconstructiontheCaliforniacourtshavealreadyplacedonthescopeof # Prop36,bothintermsofinitialeligibilityandcontinuedcompliance,itiscriticalthatany $  futurelegislationamendingProp36becraftedinamannerthatkeepsitstermsconsistent % ! withtheintentofthevoters. &!"   (#$ VI.SUGGESTEDADDITIONALREADING   FortheannualreportonProp36preparedby_UCLA_:  4 4O  5    http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/documents/sacpa080405.pdf64Osubs  7 =  ForacomprehensivereportondrugcourtsinCaliforniapreparedbytheDrugCourt   Partnership:     http://_www.adp.cahwnet.gov_/_DrugCourts_/_pdf_/DCP_FinalReport_March2002._pdf_   ForabasicstatisticalcomparisonofdrugcourtsandProp36preparedbytheDrugPolicy   Alliance:     4 4O  5  http://www.prop36.org/pdf/summary_comparison.pdf6.4OBsubs  7 6p