P. v. Dey
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of precursors with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a), 11383, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court found defendant had sustained a prior controlled substance conviction. (Pen. Code, 1170.12; Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2.) The trial court found unusual circumstances and placed defendant on formal probation.
Six months later, defendant violated his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. The trial court continued defendants probation and ordered defendant to complete the Well Ministry of Rescue program. Defendant, however, left the program without permission shortly before completing it. The trial court revoked defendants probation, released defendant on his own recognizance and ordered defendant to attend the Skyway House outpatient program and continue to comply with the previous terms of his probation.
At the May 3, 2005, disposition hearing on the probation violations, the court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. The court then found that defendant had manufactured methamphetamine for personal use and was addicted to narcotics. The court suspended criminal proceedings and referred defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).
Defendant signed a waiver form waiving his Welfare and Institutions Code section 3053 rights, including the right to appear in court should the CRC reject him for any legal reason. Defendant was subsequently excluded from the CRC. At a hearing with counsel, in the absence of defendant, the court vacated the civil commitment, reinstated the criminal proceedings and executed the previously suspended six-year state prison sentence.
On appeal, defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because he did not execute a valid waiver of his right to be present during any postexclusion criminal proceedings. He further argues that the waiver was not applicable because his exclusion from the CRC was not for a legal reason. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Dey