P. v. Chandler
Defendant Jon Dean Chandler appeals from the trial court’s order of March 5, 2013, revoking his Proposition 36 probation and sentencing him to four years in prison. Defendant argues he should be reinstated on probation because: (1) the trial court did not provide defendant with notice of and a hearing on the latest probation violation; (2) the trial court did not afford defendant three separate grants of probation; (3) the trial court based its decision on an erroneous misunderstanding that his prior strike made him ineligible for Proposition 36 probation; and (4) in the alternative, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s erroneous misunderstanding regarding the effect of his prior strike on his eligibility for Proposition 36. As discussed below, we conclude that defendant became ineligible for reinstatement of probation under Proposition 36 because, under section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(4), he refused drug treatment after being ordered to re-enroll following his failure to complete the first drug treatment program.
Comments on P. v. Chandler