P. v. Baptista CA3
Under a plea agreement, defendant Matthew Baptista pleaded no contest to misdemeanor drug possession, and the superior court sent Baptista to drug treatment under Proposition 36. Over a year later, at a hearing that the district attorney did not attend, the superior court found that Baptista had successfully completed drug treatment, so it set aside his conviction and dismissed the information. The People appeal.
On appeal, the People contend we must reverse the setting aside of the conviction and dismissal of the information because the district attorney did not have notice of the hearing and motion to set aside the conviction and dismiss the information. Acknowledging that the superior court’s order states that the district attorney had notice, the People claim we should disregard that statement for various reasons. In response, Baptista argues that (1) the procedure leading to dismissal of the information was authorized by a memorandum of understanding for Proposition 36 cas
Comments on P. v. Baptista CA3