People v. Cantu

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2004 No. H024717Published

Before: Premo

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol constitutes a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs, thereby disqualifying a defendant from sentencing under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36).

Issues

Whether a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol precludes eligibility for Proposition 36 sentencing.
Whether the exclusion of driving under the influence convictions from Proposition 36 violates the equal protection clause.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The gravamen of the misdemeanor for which defendant was convicted is driving while impaired.”

“We conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that defendant's violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) excluded him from Proposition 36 treatment.”

“Proposition 36 targets for treatment only nonviolent, non-dangerous offenders and excludes those who may pose a danger to others.”

5 Cal.Rptr.3d 389 (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 729 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

David CANTU, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

No. H024717. Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

October 10, 2003. Rehearing Denied November 6, 2003. Review Granted January 14, 2004. [390] Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, William Kuimelis, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff/Respondent, The People.

[391] Sixth District Appellate Program, In association with Kathleen Novoa, for Defendant/Appellant.

PREMO, Acting P.J.

Defendant David Cantu, Jr. was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and driving with a blood alcohol content of greater than 0.08 percent. On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible to be sentenced pursuant to the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36). (Pen.Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1.) We shall affirm.

A. Background

Defendant had been stopped by police for running a stop sign.[1] He failed to satisfactorily perform a series of field sobriety tests and was transported to jail on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the jail officers discovered a packet of methamphetamine on his person. Defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.16 percent.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of driving with a blood alcohol content greater that 0.08 percent (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) (a misdemeanor). The trial court placed him on three years probation. Defendant pled no contest to the crime of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (a felony). The court referred him to the Deferred Entry of Judgment Program (DEJP) for that crime. Defendant did not satisfactorily complete the DEJP and was referred back to the court.

People v. Cantu

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

B. DISCUSSION

C. DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief