WPC( -noi>V_V](d00b9 ʵ/\&5ʡB˴MtF`3㸤n8G CGmW>F2,qx9Oΐz ׵X{%˸ᆽ$rGPOKBɥ,MGGx23Fw6L%ZHdKzKoO0_J}bgUYtj|gg^yawp@%~%XU(YFX4If yyNڜxhpZiVsuIӪ.>1I=~[cwѵs+c7du:`Vre$gCzYPʶ%g uy΄pO/*yh9 $\Ŧ2ڜRTmU4J_ ,@\d6 3]ߚCuyEX] .^$_)PMe(RV'1(㞪3]5_:#,UN %C 0YI^ w4 m 00c 1uQ 72 0w 0o 0 0 0M 0 0 0D 1" 72N 1 72^ 1 72 1sM 72          &  2  >  JV 0!NZ   HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,E0 uZm,ATHY03|x U(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(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(#  xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List9;GMSY_ekqRomanRomanI.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.9 CSY_ekqw}Numbers 2Numbers1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)1)122.12.22.32.42.52.62.71(O$22.12.22.32.42.52.62.6toptoptoptoptoptoptoptop !XXUSUS.,  _TRX3'*FDAP NEW LABELSX3' Letter3'*FDAP NEW LABELS8tX3'LetterT  K8tXdd8  % 2 TheSubstanceAbuseandCrimePrevention  Actof2000 6 K_aka_ԀProposition36, B  or FourStrikesandMaybeYou'reOut B    @* (93  (39I.4( d)O  5  OVERVIEWOFTHELAW6[)Oo  7 & B  II.4* )O  5  ISSUESINTHECOURTS6,)O@  7 0n B   (93 ( 99" 3"   32   1  .3  0 p   4+ p)O  5  Whatisanonviolentdrugpossessionoffense?6)O  7 R 3<݌B p(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   32   2  .3  0 p   4, p)O  5  Whatisadrugrelatedconditionofprobation?61 )OE   7 >s  3݌B p(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   3H 2   3  .3  0 p   4- p)O  5  Otherthresholdeligibilitybars:6 )O   7   3H u ݌B p(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   3 2   4  .3  0 p   4. p)O  5  WhofindsthefactswhichmakeDeligibleorineligible?Whohastheburden B  ofproofastothosefacts?6] )Oq   7 *  3  ݌Bp(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   3 2   5  .3  0 p   4/ p)O  5  Canthetrialcourtstrikedisqualifyingfactsundersection1385?6G)O[  7  3 ݌Bp(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   3q2   6  .3  0 p   40 p)O  5  Retroactivity:WhendoesProp.36eligibilitykickin?6)O   7 |9 3q݌Bp(#p(# Ќ  " 3"   32   7  .3  0 p   41 p)O  5  Anotherequalprotectionproblem:probationersvs.parolees6)O  7 . 3B݌Bp(#p(# Ќ   %  I.OVERVIEWOFTHELAW  B   Foronce,thevotersshowedagooddealofsenseandsympathy.Bya61percent @ majority,theyadoptedalawthatpeopleshouldnotbesenttoprisonforsimple @ possessionoruseofdrugs.Evenpeoplewhopossessorusedrugsforasecondorathird @ timemaynotbesenttoprison,unlessthereissomeothergoodreasonforlockingthem @  up.Instead,theymustgetcontinuedprobation,anddrugtreatment. @!   Thecourtshavereactedverycautiouslytothisexperiment.Unliketheexpansive @# interpretationsgivento,say,theThreeStrikesLawortoProposition21(the2000Gang @$ ViolenceandJuvenileCrimePreventionAct),thejudicialinterpretationsofProposition @%  36havebeenextremelystrict.Thecourtshaveassumedthatthevotersmeanttokeepthe @&!  classofeligibledefendantsanarrowone.Theyhavethusexcludedfromthelaw's @'"! coveragemanypeoplewhoseproblemisclearlydrugabuse!butwhocanbefoundtobe @(#" outsidealiteralreadingofitseligibilitycriteria. @)$#   WhenadefendantiseligibleforProposition36probation,however,itsapplication @+&% ismandatory.Atrialcourtsimplyhasnodiscretiontoimprisonaneligibledefendant.It @,'& cannotevensummarilyrevokehisprobationforadrugrelatedviolation.(Peoplev.  @-(' Mehdizadeh(2003)105Cal.App.4th995.)Unlikethedeferredentryofjudgment  program(Pen.Code,1000,1000.21000.3),thecourtcannotdecidethatadefendantisa  poorcandidatefordrugtreatment.Ifhe'seligible,hegetshischanceatit.    Eventhatbaneoftheappellatelawyer'spractice,thefailuretoobjecttotrialcourt  error,doesnotapplyhere. PlacementofeligibledefendantsinProposition36programs   isnotadiscretionarysentencingchoicemadebythetrialjudgeandisnotsubjecttothe   waiverdoctrine.(Peoplev.Esparza(2003)107Cal.App.4th691,699.)     Ofcourse,asEsparzapointsout,afindingthatadefendantisnoteligibleforProp.   _36'smandatoryprobationdoesnotmeanhecan'thaveprobationatall.Hemaywellbe   eligiblefordiscretionaryprobation,underthenormalprobationstatutesatsection1203et   seq.Ontheotherhand,somedefendantswhoareeligibleforProp.36probationarenot   eligiblefordiscretionaryprobation!notably,defendantswithfiveyearoldstrikepriors.   Iftheycan'tmakeitintotheclassofProp.36eligibles,theyarebarredfromprobationby  theThreeStrikeslaw,nomatterhowancienttheirstrikepriormaybe.(Compare  1210.1(b)(1),theProp.36eligibilityprovision,with1170.12(a)(2),theThreeStrikes  probationbar.)    Here,inroughoutline,istheProposition36program,ascodifiedatPenalCode  sections1210.1and3063.1.(ThefundingprovisionsbeginatHealthandSafetyCode  section11999.4.)    Eligibility     Anyoneconvictedofanonviolentdrugpossessionoffense(NVDPO)gets  probation.Probationconditionswillinclude anappropriatedrugtreatmentprogram.  Theymayincludeothereducational,counselling,andcommunityserviceconditions.  Theymaynotincludejailtime.(1210.1(a).)     Onlydefendantswhofallintoaparticularexcludedcategoryofpersonsmaybe " incarcerated.(Peoplev.Murillo(2002)102Cal.App.4th1414,1418.)Thefiveclasses # ofexcludablesarelistedinsection1210.1(b),andinclude: $    (y9" 3"  0   3$23  0` (#(#  Personswith strikepriorsthathaven't washedout(1210.1(b)(1).) 3$$݌&!"` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3%23  0` (#(#  PersonswhoinadditiontotheirNVDPOarealsoconvictedofa '"#  misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugsoranyfelony.( (#$ 1210.1(b)(2).) 3% &݌)$%` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3\'23  0` (#(#  Personswhouseaguninconnectionwithpossessionoruseofvarious *%& drugs.(1210.1(b)(3).) 3\''݌+&'` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3(23  0` (#(#  Personswhorefusedrugtreatmentasaconditionofprobation.(  1210.1(b)(4).) 3((݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3)23  0` (#(#  PersonswhohavetwoNVDPO's,havefailedtwodrugprograms,andhave  beenfoundbyclearandconvincingevidencetobeunamenableto anyand  allformsofavailabledrugtreatment.Thesepersonsshallbesentencedto  30daysinjail.(1210.1(b)(5).) 3)*݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0   (#(#   Ifyousucceed...      Section1210.1(d)authorizes dismissalofchargesuponsuccessfulcompletionof   drugtreatment.     Specifically, successfulcompletionallowsadefendanttopetitionthecourtfor   expungement.(1210.1(d)(1).) [T]hedefendantshallthereafterbereleasedfromall   penaltiesanddisabilitiesresultingfromtheoffenseofwhichheorshehasbeen  convicted!exceptthats/hecannotownorpossessagun(1210.1(d)(2)),ands/hemust  disclosetheconvictiononanyapplicationforpublicoffice,forapeaceofficerjob,orina  licenseapplication.(1210.1(d)(3).)    Whatisa successfulcompletion?Thisappearstobeleftuptothetrialcourt,  whichmayfindthatadefendantwhohadafewrelapseswasnotsuccessful.Therehas  notyetbeenanycaselawdefining successfulcompletion.    Ifatfirstyoudon'tsucceed...     Theprobationrevocationschemeissetoutatsection1210.1(e),andisthesame  whethertheunderlyingNVDPOconvictionpredatesorpostdatestheenactmentof  Proposition36.Ifaprobationviolationisnotdrugrelated,thecourtmustholdahearing,   andmayrevokeprobationundertheordinaryrules.(1210.1(e)(2).) !   Butiftheprobationviolationisdrugrelated,thelawrecognizesthat drugabusers # ofteninitiallyfalterintheirrecoveryand givesoffendersseveralchancesatprobation $  beforepermittingacourttoimposejailtime.(InreTaylor(2003)105Cal.App.4th % ! 1394,1397.) &!"    `     h      p      x  " 3"  0   3423  0` (#(#  Onafirstdrugrelatedviolation,thecourtcannotrevokeunlessthe (#$ prosecutionprovesbyapreponderancethatthedefendant posesadanger )$% tothesafetyofothers.Thecourtmay,however, intensifyoralterthe *%& treatmentplan.(1210.1(e)(3)(A)[forProp.36probationers]and(D)[for +&' defendantsalreadyonprobationatthetimeProp.36tookeffect].) 344݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3<723  0` (#(#  Onaseconddrugrelatedviolation,thecourtcanrevokeiftheprosecution  provesbyapreponderanceeitherthatthedefendantposesadangertothe  safetyofothersorthats/heisunamenabletodrugtreatment.Again,the  courtmay intensifyoralterthetreatmentplan,ifitmaynotrevoke. 3<7u7݌ ` (#` (# Ќ     ` (1210.1(e)(3)(B)and(E).)   " 3"     3923  0 `   Onathirddrugrelatedviolation, thedefendantisnoteligiblefor   continuedprobationundersubdivision(a).(1210.1(e)(3)(C)and(F).)   (Thisdoesnotsaythats/heisineligibleforprobationunder1203,the   regularprobationstatute.Butthatstatute,unlike1210.1,subd.(a),allows   thecourttoimposejailtimeasacondition.) 39:݌ ` (#` (# Ќ    Parolees      Paroleesgettwochances,comparedtotheprobationers'three.(3063.1(d)(3)(A)  (D).)Likeprobationers,theyareexcludableiftheycommita misdemeanornotrelated  totheuseofdrugsoranyfelonyotherthanaNVDPOwhileonparole.(3063.1(b)(2).)  Theyarealsoexcludableiftheyrefusedrugtreatmentasaconditionofparole.  (3063.1(b)(3).)    Themajordifferencebetweenparoleesandprobationersworksinfavorof  parolees:theirunderlyingoffensedoesnothavetobeanNVDPO.Theycanbeonparole  foranythingotherthanaseriousorviolentfelony.(3063.1(b)(1).)Thisdifferenceis  thebasisofanequalprotectionclaimbyprobationers,nowpendingintheCalifornia  SupremeCourt.(SeeIssues,part7,below.)      `  43 )O  5  backtotop6@)O@12  7p@   %  II.ISSUESINTHECOURTS  !   % ! 1.Whatisanonviolentdrugpossessionoffense?Moreimportantly,whatis # not?Whatisa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugs(1210.1(b)(2)),for $  whichaconviction inthesameproceedingastheNVDPObarsProp.36 % ! eligibility? &!"    Cultivation: Peoplev.Sharp(2003)112Cal.App.4th1336:Cultivationof (#$ marijuana,evenforpersonaluse, doesnotmeetthestatutorydefinition[ofaNVDPO]... )$% becauseitisnot'possession,use,ortransportationforpersonaluse'or'beingunderthe *%& influence'ofacontrolledsubstance.(Pen.Code,1210,subd.(a).)Rather,cultivation +&' fallswithintheexcludedoffensesof'possessionforsale,production,or  manufacturing....'    InSharp,CA3acknowledgedD'sargumentsthatcultivationforpersonaluseought  logicallytobeincluded,sinceitfitsundertheexpresspurposeofthestatute,andsinceit  doesnotdisqualifyadefendantfordeferredentryofjudgment.However,thecourt   refusedtobudgepasttheliterallanguageofthestatute.Perhapsintacitrecognitionof   thefactthatProp.36wasacarefullycraftedcompromisemeasure,witheachprovision   testedbeforefocusgroupstoensurethatitwouldnotthreatenthelaw'spassage,thecourt   heldbackfromanyenlargement:   0  These[earlierdiversion]casesteachthatwhereastatutoryschemedesignedto   providetreatmentfornonviolentdrugoffendersfailstoincludeaparticular   nonviolentdrugoffense,itisfortheLegislature,notthecourts,toamendthe   statutetoaddthemissingoffense.(#(#   Driving :CA3'stwoearliereffortstoexpandeligibilityhaveresultedingrantsof  review.InPeoplev.Canty(CA3,2002)100Cal.App.4th903, rev.gtd.10/16/2002,  S109537 : Themisdemeanoroffenseofdrivingundertheinfluenceofdrugsdoesnot  involvethe'simplepossessionoruseofdrugs'sinceitrequirestheadditionalelementof   impaireddriving.Thusitisa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugsasdefinedin   section1210(d),andbarsProp.36eligibilityundersection1210.1(b)!evenifthe   concurrentfelonyconvictionwouldrenderDeligible.(Sameholding:Peoplev.Walters   (CA2/3,2002)103Cal.App.4th936,rev.gtd.S112291;Trumblev.SuperiorCourt   (CA4/1,2002)103Cal.App.4th1011,rev.gtd.S112339;Peoplev.Garcia(CA5,2002)   103Cal.App.4th1228,rev.gtd.S112688;Peoplev.Campbell(CA6,2003)106   Cal.App.4th808,rev.gtd.S115020.)     Peoplev.Goldberg(2003)105Cal.App.4th1202alsoheldthataconcurrentDUI   conviction(drivingundertheinfluenceofmeth)disqualifiedadrugdefendantforProp. !  36treatment,undersection1201.1(b).Goldbergisapparentlyfinalonappeal. "    Theft?Reviewwasalsogranted inCA3'sPeoplev.Garcia(2002)99 $  Cal.App.4th38,whichheldthatpettytheftofdrugs,followedbytheirimmediate %!! consumption,wasamisdemeanorinvolvingtheuseofdrugs,andwasthereforenota &"" Prop.36disqualifier. ...[B]eingthesolepurposeofthetheft,thepossessionand '## immediateuseofthestolendrugisacomponentpartofthetheft.( Rev.gtd.8/28/2002, ($$ S108472! butthecasewasthenabatedon1/15/03,duetoGarcia'sdeath;thecourtnoted )%% thependencyofCantyindismissingthegrantofreview.) *&&  +''   Alcohol :Drivingundertheinfluenceofalcohol,asopposedtoacontrolled  substance,isa misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugsundersection1210.1(b)(2).  Peoplev.Cantu(CA6,2003)112Cal.App.4th729,pet.rev.filed11/19/03,heldthat   Proposition36targetsfortreatmentonlynonviolent,nondangerousoffendersand  excludesthosewhomayposeadangertoothers....Unlikesimpledrugpossessionand  useoffenses,drivingundertheinfluenceposesasubstantialdangertothehealthand   safetyofothers.       Resistingarrest :CA4/1heldthataDwhoresistedhisarrestforsimplepossession   wasdisqualifiedforProp.36treatmentbecausesection148isa misdemeanornotrelated    totheuseofdrugs.Peoplev.Ayele(2002)102Cal.App.4th1276, rev.gtd.S111522,   briefingdeferredbehindCanty.      Canthetrialcourtavoidthebarofsection1210.1(b)(2)byseveringthe   NVDPOfromtheotheroffense(s)? Probablynot.Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Jefferson)  (2002)97Cal.App.4th530,537538.   44 )O  5  backtotop6?X)OSX12  7pX    % " 2.Whatisadrugrelatedconditionofprobation?     Undersection1210.1(e),adefendantcanstayonProp.36forhisfirsttwo  probationviolations!solongas(1)theviolationsareofdrugrelatedconditionsof  probation;(2)thedefendantisonprobationforanNVDPOinthefirstplace;and(3) the  trialcourtdoesnotfinds/heisadangertothepublic(forafirstviolation)and/oris  unamenabletotreatment(forasecondviolation.)    Whichviolationsqualifyas drugrelated?Thestatutorydefinitionofa drug  relatedconditionofprobationisatsection1210.1(f).Itincludes aprobationer's   specificdrugtreatmentregimen,employment,vocationaltraining,educationalprograms, ! psychologicalcounseling,andfamilycounseling. "   DUIdoesnotqualify :InPeoplev.Campbell(CA6,2003)106Cal.App.4th808, $   rev.gtd.S115020, theCourtofAppealheldthatdrivingundertheinfluenceofdrugsnot %!! onlyfailedasaNVDPO,andasamisdemeanorrelatedtotheuseofdrugs,italsofailed &"" toqualifyasa drugrelatedprobationviolationundersection1210.1(e)(3). '##   Failuretoreportfortesting doesqualify :InreTaylor(CA2/8,2003)105 )%% Cal.App.4th1394,rev.den.5/21/03,heldthatasincea drugtreatmentregimenwasa *&& drugrelatedcondition,andsincetestingispartofthedrugtreatmentregimen,andsince +'' testingrequiresshowingupforthetest... itfollowsthatadrugtreatmentregimen  includesappearingfortests.Appearing(orfailingtoappear)foradrugtestthussatisfies  thedefinitionofadrugrelatedconditionofprobation.(See1210.1,subd.(f).)(See  alsoPeoplev.Mehdizadeh(2003)105Cal.App.4th995,1001.Peoplev.Atwood(2003)  110Cal.App.4th805heldthatfailuretoparticipateinadrugtreatmentprogramisadrug  relatedconditionofprobation,butfailureto followallordersmaynotbe.However,   Atwoodheld,theburdenofproofthataconditionisnotdrugrelatedisonthePeople.)     Butfailuretomeetageneralreportingrequirementisnotdrugrelated :   Peoplev.Dixon(CA3,2003)113Cal.App.4th146 heldthatadefendantwhofailedto    reportbymail,asordered,hadviolatedanondrugrelatedcondition. Thismethodof   reportingcouldnothaveinvolvedadrugtestnorwasthereanythingelseaboutreporting   bymailthatwaspeculiartodefendant'sdrugproblemsordrugtreatment.(Same:People   v.Goldberg(2003)105Cal.App.4th1202,1209;Peoplev.Johnson(2003)!Cal.App.4th   ![2003WL22928866].SeealsoAtwood,above.)  45 )O  5  backtotop6Uf)Oif12  7pf    % # 3.Otherthresholdeligibilitybars:     Refusaltoacceptdrugtreatment (1210.1(b)(4)):Thisbarcannotbebasedon   apastrefusalofdrugtreatmentinsomeothercase,letalonearefusaltotakeadrinking  driverclass[inapreviouscase].Peoplev.Espinoza(CA1/1,2003)107Cal.App.4th  1069.    Butitcanbebasedonskippingoutonaninitialassignmenttoaprogram,  followingthegrantofprobation.InPeoplev.Guzman(2003)109Cal.App.4th341,the  defendant,uponbeingplacedonprobation,wenttoMexicoforfivemonthsratherthanto  hisassigneddrugprogram.Whenhewasbroughtbacktocourt,thejudgeviewedthisas   aninitialrefusalofdrugtreatment,undersection1210.1(b)(4),ratherthanasaviolation ! ofadrugrelatedprobationcondition,undersection1210.1(e)(3).TheCourtofAppeal " upheldthejudge: Weholdthattheeligibilityrequirementscontinuetoapplyevenafter # theinitialgrantofprobation....Suchadefendant[asGuzman]istobedistinguishedfrom $  adefendantwhocommencesdrugtreatmentandthereafterfaltersbyviolatingconditions %!! ofprobation.(109Cal.App.4thatp.350.) &""   SeealsoPeoplev.Johnson(2003)!Cal.App.4th![2003WL22928866],holding ($$ thataparanoidschizophrenicdefendantwho repeatedlyviolatedherprobationbyfailing )%% toreporttotheprobationofficerandbyneverenrollinginthecourtordereddrug *&& programwasineligibleundersection1210.1(b)(4).(Thecourtdidnotdiscusswhether +'' thevotersinenactingProp.36reallyintendedtosendschizophrenicstoprison.)    Illegalimmigrationstatus :Whilethereisnoexplicitstatutorybasisforexcluding  illegalaliens,CA1/1findsthat thestrongprobabilitythatdefendantwillbedeported  beforehecansatisfythedrugtreatmentconditionofhisprobationwouldentirelyfrustrate  theobjectivesofProposition36.Peoplev.Espinoza(2003)107Cal.App.4th1069.     Aprisonsentenceinanothercase :InPeoplev.Esparza(2003)107Cal.App.4th   691,CA3heldthatacourtimposingaprisonsentenceinanondrugcasewasnot   requiredtograntProp.36probationinthedrugcase: Defendanthad,throughhisprison    sentenceforthevandalismcase,becomeunabletoparticipateinthoseprogramsorto   complywithmandatoryprobationconditions....Weconcludethatadefendantis   'unamenable'whenheisunavailabletoparticipateinProposition36programswithinthe   statutorytimeperiodsbecauseofhisprisonsentence.     Priorswhichhaven'twashedout :Prop.36partiallyoverridestheThreeStrikes  law,whichbarsprobationforanyonewitha strikeprior,nomatterhowoldtheprior   maybe.(667(c)(2).)UnderProp.36,probationcanbegrantedtoanotherwiseeligible   defendant,ifhisstrikepriorisoldenough.Specifically,ifthenewNVDPOoccurs after   aperiodoffiveyearsinwhichthedefendantremainedfreeofbothprisoncustodyandthe   commissionofanoffensethatresultsin(A)afelonyconvictionotherthanaNVDPO,or   (B)amisdemeanorconvictioninvolvingphysicalinjuryorthethreatofphysicalinjuryto   anotherperson(1210.1(b)(1)),heiseligibleforProp.36probation.     However,thefivecleanyearsmustimmediatelyprecedetheNVDPO.Itisnot   enoughtohaveanyfivecleanyearsfollowingthestrikeconviction:Peoplev.Superior   Court(Martinez)(2002)104Cal.App.4th692;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Henkel)(2002)   98Cal.App.4th78;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Turner)(2002)97Cal.App.4th1222   (relyinginpartonthepromisewhichtheLegislativeAnalystmadeintheballotlanguage,   thatnoseriousorviolentfelonwouldgetprobationunlesss/hewasfreeofcustodyor !  newoffenses duringthefiveyearsbeforeheorshecommittedaNVDPO);andPeople "  v.SuperiorCourt(Jefferson)(2002)97Cal.App.4th530. #    However,ifthedefendantneverwenttoprisonfollowingthestrikeconviction, % !! doesthewashoutperiodstartatthetimetheprioroffensewascommitted?Orisit & "" washedoutregardlessofhowmuchtimehaspassed?Peoplev.Johnson(2003)! ' ## Cal.App.4th![2003WL22928866],inaveryunclearpassage,suggeststhatiftherewas ( $$ nocustody,thereisnodisqualifyingstrikeprior. ) %%   SomestrikepriorsdonotdisqualifyadefendantforProp.36,regardlessof + '' washout: UndertheThreeStrikeslaw,somejuvenileoffensescountasstrikes.(  667(d)(3).)However,underProp.36adefendantisdisqualifiedonlyifs/he hasbeen  convictedofoneormoreseriousorviolentfeloniesinviolationofsubdivision(c)of  section667.5orsection1192.7.(1210.1(b)(1).)    Ajuvenileoffense,evenifitisastrike,isnotaconviction.Thus,itdoesnotbara   defendantfromProp.36eligibility.Thereisnoneedtoworryaboutmeetingthewashout   requirementinsuchacase.Peoplev.Westbrook(2002)100Cal.App.4th378.   ______46 )O  5  backtotop6)O12  7pۀ     % $ 4.WhofindsthefactswhichmakeDeligibleorineligible?Whohasthe   burdenofproofastothosefacts?      ANVDPOmaybe transportationforpersonaluse.(1210(a).)Thereisno  suchoffenseintheHealthandSafetyCode;transportationoffensesdonotdistinguish  betweentransportationforpersonaluseandforsale.Soaconvictionfor transportation  doesnotinitselfanswerthequestionofProp.36eligibility.    InPeoplev.Glasper(2003)Cal.App.4th"[CA6,10/31/03],defendantswere  acquittedofpossessionforsale,butconvictedofsimplepossessionandtransportation.  Theyarguedthatthejury'sverdictwasbindingonthetrialcourt,whichcouldnotdeny  themProp.36treatmentbyfindingthatthetransportationwasreallyforsale.TheCourt  ofAppealheldthatthejurywasnotrequiredtofindthefactsregardingeligibility;the  judgewasfreetomakethefindings.Thefacts(here,transportationforsale)donothave  tobepledandproven,underApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466: Apprendi  doesnotapplyherebecause'theissueconcernsasentencingprovisionwhichlightens,   ratherthanincreases,punishmentforcrime.'(QuotingPeoplev.Barasa(2002)103 ! Cal.App.4th287,294.) "   BarasaheldthatApprendidoesnotapplytoProp.36eligibilityfindings,because $  Prop.36doesnotinvolveasentencingenhancement.ItrejectedtheargumentthatProp. % ! 36createdanoffenseoftransportationforpersonaluse,with notforpersonaluse &!" constitutingasentencingenhancement. '"#   Lookingatthestatutorylanguage,Barasafoundthatthedefendanthadtheburden )$% ofprooftoshowthatthetransportationwasforpersonaluse.(Evid.Code500: Except *%& asotherwiseprovidedbylaw,apartyhastheburdenofproofastoeachfacttheexistence +&' ornonexistenceofwhichisessentialtotheclaimforreliefordefensethatheisasserting  ....)    Peoplev.Atwood(2003)110Cal.App.4th805distinguishedBarasawhenthe  findingswereaboutwhetheraprobationviolationwasdrugrelated,ratherthanabout  whetheradefendantmettheinitialeligibilitycriteria. Here,thePeoplewanttosend   defendanttoprison.Inordertosatisfythestatutorycriteria,theyhavetoshowthatat   leastoneconditionofprobationviolatedwasnot'drugrelated.'Thatfactis'essentialto   theclaimforrelief...that[thePeople]areasserting.'(Evid.Code,500.)     ThedifferencebetweenBarasaandthiscaseisthis:inBarasa,defendantwas   seekingagrantofprobationandwasthereforeassertinga'claimforrelief'withinthe   meaningofEvidenceCodesection500.Intheinstantcase,thePeopleareseekinga   revocationofprobationandincarcerationandarethereforeassertinga'claimforrelief'   withinthemeaningofthesameEvidenceCodesection.(110Cal.App.4thatp.810.)  47 )O  5  backtotop6V)Oj12  7p     % % 5.Canthetrialcourtstrikedisqualifyingfactsundersection1385?       No.TheSupremeCourthasheldthat trialcourtsmaynotusesection1385to  disregard'sentencingfactors'thatarenotthemselvesrequiredtobeachargeorallegation  inanindictmentorinformation.(InreVarnell(2003)30Cal.4th1132,1135.)    InVarnell,thedefendantwaschargedwithadrugpossessionoffense,andwitha  strikepriorwhichwoulddisqualifyhimforProp.36treatment.(Thepriorwasnotold  enoughtohavewashedout,under1210.1(b)(1).)Thetrialcourtstruckthepriorfor  purposesoftheThreeStrikeslaw!butnonethelessfoundthatthefactoftheprior   convictionrenderedDineligibleforProp.36. !   TheSupremeCourtupheldthisreasoning.Section1385,itheld,maybeusedto # dismisssentencingallegationswhichmustbepledandproven.Butthefactswhichmake $  adefendantineligibleforProp.36donothavetobepledandproven;theydonotincrease % ! themaximumsentenceforanoffense(cf.Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466) &!" andtheydonotevenmakeadefendantabsolutelyineligibleforprobation.(Cf.Peoplev. '"# LoCicero(2003)71Cal.2d1186.) Arulingthatsection1385couldbeusedtodisregard (#$ sentencingfactors,which...arenotincludedasoffensesorallegationsinanaccusatory )$% pleadingwouldbeunprecedented.(30Cal.4thatp.1137.)Besides,itwouldbe *%& inconsistentwiththeintentofthevoters.(Id.,atp.11431144.) +&' Ї  (Arelatedcase,Peoplev.Ayele,formerlyat102Cal.App.4th1276,heldthatatrial  courtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingtostrike,undersection1385,aconcurrent   misdemeanornotrelatedtotheuseofdrugs,whichmadeDineligibleunder  1210.1(b)(2).Ayeleassumed,withoutdeciding,thatinapropercasesection1385would  beavailabletostrikethatmisdemeanor.AlthoughAyelenotedthependencyofVarnell,  reviewwasactuallygrantedbehindCanty.(Pv.Ayele,S111522;seeIssue1,above,fora   summaryoftheCantyissue.)Thus,thereisnoansweryettotheVarnellquestion:since   thedisqualifyingmisdemeanorconvictionpresumablyrequirespleadingandproof,could   thetrialcourtstrikeitundersection1385?)   48 )O  5  backtotop6)O՜12  7p     % & 6.Retroactivity:WhendoesProp.36eligibilitykickin?      Peoplev.Floyd(2003)31Cal.4th179:Prop.36'srighttoaninitialgrantof   probationisavailableonlytodefendantsnotyetsentencedonJuly1,2001.Itisnot  availabletoapersonwhohasbeensentenced,butwhoseconvictionisnotyetfinalon  appeal,bythatdate.    Normally,underInreEstrada(1965)63Cal.2d740,whentheLegislatureorthe  votersacttoreduceacriminalpunishment,thecourtswillpresumethattheyintendedto  applytheameliorativemeasureretroactively.Thismeans,atleast,thatanyonewhose  convictionisnotyetfinalonappealgetsthebenefitoftheameliorativemeasure.    Butthispresumptiononlyhaseffectifthereisnosavingsclause.Prop.36did  haveasavingsclause,initsuncodifiedsection8.( Exceptasotherwiseprovided,the  provisionsofthisactshallbecomeeffectiveJuly1,2001,anditsprovisionsshallbe  appliedprospectively.)TheSupremeCourtheldinFloydthat prospectivelymeantthat  thedraftersintendedtoavoidtheEstradarule!andthat,therefore,Prop.36couldnotbe   extendedtoallpersonswhoseconvictionsarenotyetfinalonappeal. !   Noristhereanyequalprotectionproblem,theCourtheld,inlettingpeoplelike # TommyLeeFryman(formerlyat97Cal.App.4th1315)do25lifeforanoffensewhich $  wouldhavegottenhimmandatoryprobation,hadhebeensentencedalittlelater.(Floyd, % ! partB.) &!"   However,theSupremeCourthasleftstandingthosecaseswhichheldthata (#$ defendantwhoisconvictedbeforeJuly1,2001,butnotsentenceduntilafterthatdate,is )$% entitledtoProp.36treatment:InreDeLong(2001)93Cal.App.4th562[forpurposesof *%& Prop.36eligibility, convictedmeansfoundguiltyandsentenced,soadefendantnotyet +&' sentencedon7/1/01hasnotyetbeen convicted];InreScoggins(2001)94Cal.App.4th  650[same].    TheCourthasalsoleftstandingacaseholdingthecontrary.Peoplev.Mendoza  (2003)106Cal.App.4th1030(rev.den.5/14/03)heldthat convictionmeansonly  adjudicationofguilt.Adefendantwhohasbeenfoundguilty,butnotyetsentenced,asof   July1,2001,is convictedbeforethekickindate,andisthereforeineligibleforProp.   36.   49 )O  5  backtotop6)O12  7pԩ     % ' 7.Anotherequalprotectionproblem:probationersvs.parolees.      AdefendantwhoviolatesprobationbycommittingaNVDPO,butwhoseoriginal   convictionisforsomeotherfelony(orwhowasadditionallyconvictedofadisqualifying   misdemeanor),isnoteligibleforProp.36'smandatorysecondandthirdchancesas  outlinedinsection1210.1(e).Subdivision(e)setsoutthescopeoftherighttocontinued  probation,intheeventofdrugrelatedviolations!butitappliesonlytothosedefendants  whoinitiallyreceivedprobationundersubdivision(a).Inotherwords,itappliesonlyto  thosedefendantsonprobationforaNVDPO.Adefendantwhoisonregularprobation,  undersection1203,forsomeotheroffenseisnotcoveredbysubdivision(e).(See,e.g.,  Peoplev.Esparza(2003)107Cal.App.4th691,697.)    However,aparoleewhoseinitialoffenseisnotaNVDPO,andwhoviolates  parolebycommittingadrugrelatedoffense,isentitledtoafewmorechances.The  paroleviolationrulesaresetoutinsection3063.1(d)(3).Theschemedoesnotexactly  paralleltheprobationviolationschemeofsection1210.1(e),butitdoesgivetheparolee  atleastonesecondchancebeforehemaybereimprisoned.    Isthereanequalprotectionviolationhere?TheSixthDistrictthoughttherewas, ! inPeoplev.Guzman,formerlyat111Cal.App.4th57.ReviewwasgrantedinGuzman, " S119129,onNovember12,2003. h  #   (Note:neitherprobationerGuzmannorthehypotheticalsimilarlysituatedparolee % ! wasinitiallyconvictedofaseriousorviolentfelony.Aseriousorviolentfelonywould &!" disqualifytheparoleeforProp.36rulesintheeventofaviolation,under3063.1(b)(1), '"# andtherebydestroyGuzman'sequalprotectionargument.Thereisnowashoutperiodfor (#$ seriousorviolentfeloniesforparolees.)