P. v. Hansford
Filed 6/1/06 P. v. Hansford CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOY MAX HANSFORD, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047298
(Super. Ct. Nos. SCR003852 & 02S2888)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. John W. DeGroot, Judge.
Susan Burke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Alison Elle Aleman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In Madera County Superior Court case No. 02S2888 (case No. 02S2888), appellant Loy Hansford stands convicted of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1). In Madera County Superior Court case No. SCR003852 (case No. SCR003852) he stands convicted of possession of methamphetamine, and in that case he admitted an allegation that he served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Appellant was on probation pursuant to Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36) (Pen. Code, § 1201 et seq.)[1] in both cases when, in August 2004,[2] a petition was filed alleging appellant had committed multiple probation violations. In December the trial court found that these allegations were true and that three of these violations were non-drug-related. In January 2005, the court revoked appellant's Proposition 36 probation and imposed a prison term of four years eight months.
On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred in finding that appellant committed non-drug-related violations of probation and therefore erred in revoking appellant's Proposition 36 probation, and (2) the abstract of judgment incorrectly states that a previously imposed restitution fine was reimposed, and therefore the abstract must be corrected. We will reverse the revocation of appellant's probation and remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
The terms of appellant's Proposition 36 probation included that he (1) â€
