Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In April 2025, Julia Stephanie Law was charged with possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, after two prior drug related convictions in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (b). The complaint also alleged a prior robbery conviction constituting a strike. Two days after being charged, Law pleaded guilty to the possession count and admitted the two prior section 11377 convictions, electing to participate in a drug treatment program under Proposition 36 and section 11395. At the People's request, the trial court dismissed the prior strike allegation. The matter was continued a month, and the minute order referred the matter to Probation for PSIR, Prop 63, and a Prop 36 assessment pursuant to 1210.1 PC.
The trial court's minute order stated the evaluation was to be under Penal Code section 1210.1—the older Proposition 36 from 2000—rather than under the more recent section 11395. The resulting reports detailed Law's extensive criminal history, including 13 misdemeanors, two felonies, 20 parole violations since 2019, and five instances of absconding from substance abuse programs since 2020. At the May 14, 2025 sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that section 11395 presumed treatment and that the probation department had erroneously evaluated Law under Penal Code section 1210.1 instead of the more recent section 11395. The trial court noted there were no 'resources' for an addiction specialist, meaning 'they mandate … something that can't be complied with,' and expressed concern that, over the past five years, defendant had 'blown' five opportunities to attend substance abuse treatment. The court found defendant was not suitable for treatment under section 11395 and sentenced defendant to prison for 16 months (the low term).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The People agreed with the defendant's argument on appeal. The court explained that section 11395, known as the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act and enacted as part of Proposition 36 in November 2024, gives repeat hard drug possession offenders the option of participating in drug and mental health treatment. Under subdivision (b)(2), such individuals are not to be sentenced to jail or prison unless a court determines the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment. Critically, subdivision (d)(1)(B) provides that upon or subsequent to arraignment, and at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney, the court shall order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation, and that expert shall submit a report to the court and the parties.
Reviewing the statutory interpretation question de novo, the court concluded that the statute's clear language required the trial court to obtain the drug addiction expert evaluation before determining suitability. While the trial court retains discretion ultimately to decide that a defendant is unsuitable for treatment once the court considers the drug addiction expert's evaluation, the expert's evaluation must come first. This interpretation is consistent with the statute's goal of preferring treatment and rehabilitation over incarceration for qualifying individuals. Here, Law agreed to treatment as part of her plea, admitted her prior qualifying convictions, waived time for sentencing, and did not object when the trial court continued the matter to obtain a 'Prop. 36' 'assessment,' indicating at minimum that she consented to the expert evaluation. The trial court therefore abused its discretion when it decided, notwithstanding the statutory provisions, that defendant was unsuitable for treatment before obtaining the necessary report.
Key Takeaways
- Health and Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (d)(1)(B) mandates that trial courts order a drug addiction expert evaluation when a defendant requests or consents to one, and the expert's report must be submitted before the court determines suitability for treatment.
- The statute gives trial courts discretion to find a defendant unsuitable for treatment, but that discretion can only be exercised after considering the required expert evaluation.
- A trial court's failure to obtain the mandated expert evaluation before finding a defendant unsuitable for Proposition 36 treatment constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.
- The court's interpretation of section 11395 effectuates the electorate's intent to prefer treatment and rehabilitation over incarceration for qualifying repeat drug possession offenders.
- The trial court's minute order stated the evaluation was to be under Penal Code section 1210.1, and the probation department erroneously evaluated the defendant under that section instead of section 11395, highlighting the procedural error that led to reversal.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision applies the procedural requirements of Proposition 36's Treatment-Mandated Felony Act to a trial court's suitability determination. The court concluded that the drug addiction expert evaluation is a mandatory prerequisite to any suitability determination, ensuring that defendants receive the benefit of expert assessment before being denied treatment and sentenced to prison. The ruling reinforces the statute's preference for rehabilitation over incarceration and illustrates the proper sequence of procedures under section 11395.
Because the opinion is unpublished and not citable under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), its precedential effect is limited. It nonetheless documents the appellate court's application of the statutory language to the specific procedural error in this case.