Proposition 36 was passed by the California voters in November 2000. This initiative requires probation and drug treatment programs, not incarceration, for conviction of possession, use, transportation for personal use or being under the influence of controlled substances, not incluing sale or manufacture or use of violence in connection with the offense.

I recently had the opportunity to work with a family who had a son eligible for Proposition 36 disposition. The son had two seperate felony arrests for possesion of cocaine and associated paraphernalia. There were no prior arrests or criminal record of any kind.

At the arraignment, the defendant qualified for a public defender who suggested he plea guilty to the charges. The pleas were entered and the court ordered the defendant to return to court at a later date for sentencing.

A week later, the defendant returned to a different courtroom designated for Proposition 36 cases. After reviewing the case file on the defendant, the judge was prepared to sentence the defendant to an elevated level of outpatient rehabilitation. There were a variety of additional conditions and mandates, all designed to monitor the defendant and insure that he remain dedicated to the recovery program.

Interestingly, this defendant asked the court to step up the treatment to mandatory inpatient treatment. He viewed his addiction as severe and felt he needed a more aggressive treatment plan to help him with his recovery. The judge was taken back at the request indicating that most defendants, and or their attorneys, request a more lenient sentence. This judge was deeply appreciative of the request for more treatment and admired the defendant’s approach to recovery. The court ordered inpatient treatment and issued a new hearing at a later date to monitor the defendant’s progress.

There were fines imposed by the court totaling approximately $1500. It is my understanding that some of the imposed fines are used to fund the court ordered treatment for the defendant. The judge indicated that if the defendant did not have money to pay for the fines, he would be able to work community service to pay it off.

The judge then spent some time lecturing the defendant concerning his sentencing. He made it very clear that if the defendant did not comply with the court ordered treatment and accompanying conditions and mandates, a very different hearing would take place the next time around. Specifically, he said his greatest hope was that the defendant take advantage of this golden opportunity and turn his life around through court ordered treatment. Failure to do so, he warned, would result in the defendant leaving the courtroom not through the rear exit as a free man, but rather, through the side door on his way to incarceration for an extended period of time.