People v. Hartley
Before: Sims
Opinion
SIMS, J.
At the time of these proceedings in the trial court, in 2006, Penal Code former section 1210.1, subdivision (d)(1) (a part of Prop. 36; hereafter section 1210.1(d)(1)), provided:
1
“(d) Dismissal of charges upon successful completion of drug treatment
“(1) At any time after completion of drug treatment,
a defendant may petition the sentencing court for dismissal of the charges.
If the court finds that the defendant successfully completed drug treatment, and substantially complied with the conditions of probation, the conviction on which the probation was based shall be set aside and the court shall dismiss the
[862]
indictment, complaint, or information against the defendant. In addition, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), both the arrest and the conviction shall be deemed never to have occurred. Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the defendant shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.” (Italics added.)
Defendants Jose Huerta, Monica Rowland, and Christina Hartley were on Proposition 36 probation in Yolo County.
Sometime prior to June 2, 2006, the Yolo County Probation Department sent defendants letters “indicating they may qualify for early termination of probation,” as well as a form, which they were asked to sign and return. By signing the form, defendants “request[ed] in writing early termination of probation.”
On June 2, 2006, the probation department filed petitions recommending (1) early termination of defendants’ probation, (2) defendants be permitted to withdraw their “no contest” pleas and enter pleas of “not guilty,” (3) the informations or complaints filed against them be dismissed, and (4) defendants “be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the . . . offense[s] or crime[s] for which [they] [were] convicted . . . , as provided under . . . [s]ection 1210.1(d)(1).” According to the petitions, defendants “ha[d] demonstrated good conduct and reform and ha[d] substantially complied with the conditions of said probation; and [are] now entitled to take the proceedings of early termination as authorized by . . . [s]ection 1210.1(d).”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)