legal news


Register | Forgot Password

PEOPLE v. BUDWISER

PEOPLE v. BUDWISER
06:13:2006

PEOPLE v. BUDWISER


Filed 6/7/06




CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION





IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT


(Placer)


----








THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


PHILIP CONRAD BUDWISER,


Defendant and Appellant.





C049566



(Super. Ct. No. 62037867)





APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, Frances A. Kearney, J. Affirmed.


Boyd & Kimball and Betsy S. Kimball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson and Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorneys General, Stephen G. Herndon and Maureen A. Daly, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Defendant Philip Conrad Budwiser was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count one) and misdemeanor possession of a methamphetamine pipe (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count two). It was further alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) and that defendant was ineligible for probation except in an unusual case (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).


Defendant entered a plea of no contest to count one and admitted the prior prison term allegation. The court dismissed count two upon the prosecutor's motion.


On July 7, 2004, the court granted probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (the Act) (§ 1210).


On September 27, 2004, defendant failed to appear in court at a scheduled hearing. Probation was revoked and a bench warrant issued. Defendant was arrested and later released on October 15, 2004. He failed to appear on November 29, 2004, and a bench warrant issued.


A petition for revocation of probation was filed on December 2, 2004, alleging the failure to appear (FTA) on November 29, 2004.


On December 13, 2004, the court summarily revoked probation. Defendant was in Folsom State Prison and was ordered to appear on the violation of probation. On February 9, 2005, he denied the FTA alleged in the December 2, 2004, petition.


On March 4, 2005, a petition for revocation of probation alleged that defendant had been discharged from the Proposition 36 treatment program on or about November 17, 2004, based on three positive methamphetamine tests and one failure to test. The probation officer recommended residential drug treatment.


On March 7, 2005, a petition for revocation of probation alleged that on November 23, 2004, defendant was in possession of â€





Description A decision wherein held Defendant's procedural rights under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36) and due process rights were not violated where court conducted single hearing on two separate petitions to revoke probation. There was substantial evidence to support finding that the defendant was unamendable to drug dependency treatment, and therefore to support revocation of probation, where evidence showed that defendant was removed from the treatment program for three positive tests and one failure to test, and defendant was subsequently found with a device designed to circumvent a urine test.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale