People v. Parodi
198 Cal. App. 4th 1179
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Parodi pleaded no contest to willfully bringing a controlled substance into a jail facility under § 4573 and sought Proposition 36 treatment.
- At booking, methamphetamine was found on Parodi's person and later discovered in a sock; incident occurred near jail entry with a posted no-contraband sign.
- Information charged unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and willfully bringing a controlled substance into a jail facility (§ 4573).
- On Nov. 8, 2010, Parodi entered a negotiated plea to § 4573; it was understood treatment eligibility under Proposition 36 would depend on the court’s ruling about § 4573 linkage to Prop 36.
- On Nov. 24, 2010, People filed a motion asserting Prop 36 ineligibility; Parodi filed a memorandum claiming eligibility; the court denied the Prop 36 motion and placed Parodi on probation with 60 days in county jail.
- The appellate court held § 4573 is not a nonviolent drug possession offense under § 1210(a), thus Prop 36 treatment is not available for § 4573 convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §4573 is a nonviolent drug possession offense under Prop 36 | Parodi argues §4573 does not categorically preclude Prop 36 treatment. | Parodi's opponent argues the statute precludes Prop 36 treatment for §4573 violations. | §4573 is not a nonviolent drug possession offense; Prop 36 treatment not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Canty, 32 Cal.4th 1266 (2004) (defines nonviolent drug possession offense and Prop 36 eligibility framework)
- People v. Wheeler, 127 Cal.App.4th 873 (2005) (explains interpretive approach to Prop 36 and related offenses)
- People v. Moniz, 140 Cal.App.4th 86 (2006) (concerns misdemeanors not related to drug use for Prop 36 eligibility)
- People v. Gutierrez, 52 Cal.App.4th 380 (1997) (premise that possession-related offenses in prison context are treated prophylactically)