California Court of Appeal

Trial court judgment sentencing defendant to state prison following revocation of probation which had been granted after his plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly removed defendant from the Proposition 36 drug treatment and placed him on regular felony probation, given his record and his stated desire to opt out of the Proposition 36 program; 2) defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective for proposing that he opt out of the Proposition 36 program and be placed on regular felony probation as it was not deficient to acquiesce to defendant's request to proceed under the terms of formal felony probation and defendant did not suffer prejudice as a result of counsel's performance; 3) the court properly exercised its discretion when it sentencing defendant to prison as he violated the terms of the deferred entry of judgment as well as the terms of the Proposition 36 program, and then violated the terms of his formal felony probation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/09/2009
• Published 07/09/2009

Judges

• KLEIN, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Fay Arfa, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Xiomara Costello, Michael R. Johnsen and Stephanie C. Brenan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.