P. v. Irigoyen
Filed 8/14/06 P. v. Irigoyen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ABEL JOSE IRIGOYEN, Defendant and Appellant. |
F049781
(Super. Ct. No. 1100288)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John E. Griffin, Jr., Judge.
Deborah Prucha, 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, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On November 8, 2005, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County case No. 1100288, charging appellant with count I, possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377); and count II, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance pipe (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), with both offenses occurring on or about November 4, 2005. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
On November 30, 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to count I and the court dismissed count II. The court placed appellant on probation pursuant to Proposition 36 for three years, subject to various terms and conditions, which included obeying all laws and completion of a substance abuse treatment program and an AIDS education program.
On January 9, 2006, an order to show cause (OSC) was filed against appellant in case No. 1100288, alleging he violated probation because he failed to enroll or attend substance abuse treatment; and he used or possessed drugs, based on his positive test on December 28, 2005, for methamphetamine and marijuana. The probation officer recommended termination of appellant's participation in Proposition 36 probation, and service of local time. On the same day, the identical OSC was filed in case No. 1094724.[1]
On January 12, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the probation violation allegations in case Nos. 1100288 and 1094724. Maria Quintero, a deputy probation officer, testified that on August 11, 2005, appellant was evaluated and found amenable to treatment, and was referred to the Stanislaus Recovery Center's intensive outpatient treatment program. Appellant initially attended sessions, but failed to attend any sessions after August 30, 2005. On December 28, 2005, appellant's drug test was positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. Ms. Quintero further testified that on January 4, 2006, appellant had an intake appointment for a substance abuse treatment program, but he failed to appear and had never enrolled in such a program. Ms. Quintero testified appellant was initially deemed amenable to treatment, but the probation department now believed he was no longer amenable because he was unwilling to cooperate.
Appellant testified he was scheduled to meet with the appropriate people to arrange his substance abuse treatment program on January 4, 2006. He missed that meeting, however, because he had an appointment with social services at the exact same time, and his wife and children would have been â€
