P. v. Palmer
On August 4, 2009, narcotics officers stopped a vehicle for an unspecified unsafe condition in which defendant Jeremiah Dean Palmer was a passenger. Both the driver and defendant were fidgety, talking rapidly, and attempting to talk at the same time. Defendant was searched pursuant to a probation search condition and was found to be in possession of 1.4 grams of methamphetamine and .6 grams of concentrated cannabis.
Defendant pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. Defendant also was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, another $200 restitution fine stayed pending successful completion of probation, a $720 fine with assessments, a $180 crime lab fee with assessments, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
In March 2010, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In April 2010, the probation department filed a second petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana, had possessed marijuana, and had been noncompliant with treatment. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In May 2010, the probation department filed a third petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court set the matter for sentencing with the understanding that sentencing would be continued if defendant was in residential treatment.
In September 2010, on the date set for sentencing, the probation department filed a fourth petition for revocation of probation based on the filing of a new case alleging defendant had illegally possessed Vicodin.
On November 17, 2010, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in
state prison, but suspended sentence and committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center.
Comments on P. v. Palmer