People v. Gates CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CPR140262
- Trial judge
- Margie G. Woods
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court revoked William Gates's postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and imposed 120 days of additional custody after finding he willfully violated a condition of release by refusing to seek judicial approval for his continued use of medical marijuana, despite having a valid medical marijuana card. The Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, holding that Gates willfully violated the condition to follow probation officer directions by refusing to seek court approval, and declining to rule on the broader legal question of whether a medical marijuana card negates the need for such approval.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of postrelease community supervision (PRCS) based on willful violation of the condition to follow probation officer directions“Thus, it seems clear to us that Gates willfully violated a term of his release. We will affirm the order revoking his PRCS.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748 — A court may impose restrictions on otherwise lawful activities as a condition of probation where such limitation is necessary to aid the person in the successful completion of probation.
- relied: People v. Brooks (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1348 — A court may impose restrictions on otherwise lawful activities as a condition of probation where such limitation is necessary to aid the person in the successful completion of probation.
- relied: People v. Moret (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 839 — Section 11362.795 permits a probationer to request court permission to use medical marijuana, and the court may deny such a request; the statute contemplates that requests may be denied.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court found William Gates willfully violated his postrelease community supervision by refusing his probation officer's repeated direction to seek court approval for his continued medical marijuana use, revoked PRCS, and imposed 120 days of custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed, declining to decide whether or how a court may restrict medical marijuana use by a supervised releasee and resting solely on Gates's refusal to follow the officer's direction.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of PRCS and imposition of 120 days custody based on Gates's refusal to follow the probation officer's direction to seek court approval for continued marijuana use“Here, Gates was only directed to seek court approval, which he declined to do. Plainly, he willfully failed to comply with the condition of his release that required him to follow the directions of his probation officer.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The record as described shows an undisputed condition requiring compliance with the probation officer's directions, repeated instructions to seek court approval under Health and Safety Code section 11362.795, and Gates's admitted refusal. Section 11362.795 itself contemplates that a supervised person asks the court to permit medical marijuana use, so a direction to make that request is a reasonable instruction, and the refusal was willful. The opinion does not state a standard of review or cite the Supreme Court's standard for revocation, but the result follows on these facts. |
Whether Gates's medical marijuana card was equivalent to a prescription and whether section 11362.795 permitted a restriction on his marijuana use during PRCS“The parties here seek to embroil this court in a debate as to the extent to which a court can condition supervised release on a limitation of marijuana use when the parolee has a marijuana card.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court properly noted the trial court assumed the card was equivalent to a prescription and did not revoke on that ground, so the question of the permissible scope of marijuana restrictions was unnecessary to the result. Declining to reach an issue not needed for the disposition is appropriate. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748 — A court may restrict otherwise lawful activities as a condition of probation when the restriction aids successful completion of probation.
- relied: People v. Brooks (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1348 — Probation conditions may limit otherwise lawful conduct where reasonably related to the goals of supervision.
- relied: People v. Moret (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 839 — Under Health and Safety Code section 11362.795 a court may deny a probationer permission to use medical marijuana during the period of supervision.
- missed: People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437 — Probation revocation requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence and the trial court's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the opinion states no standard of review.
- missed: People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 — Sets the test for the reasonableness of a supervision condition; Gates argued the officer had no basis to direct him to seek court approval, which implicates whether the direction was a reasonable instruction, and the court did not address Lent.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by confining the affirmance to Gates's undisputed, willful refusal to follow a lawful direction, which is enough to sustain revocation. It did not state the standard of review, cite the Supreme Court's revocation standard, or directly engage Gates's argument that the probation officer lacked a basis to issue the direction beyond general citations to Barajas and Brooks.
Opinion
Filed 9/22/15 P. v. Gates CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066763
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CPR140262)
WILLIAM GATES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G.
Woods, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr. and Stacy Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
William Gates was released from prison for the second time in March 2014. He was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). In August 2014, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Gates's PRCS on the grounds he had violated the conditions of his release.
Following an evidentiary hearing on September 17, 2014, the court found Gates was in violation of the terms of his release because he refused to follow the directions of the probation officer. The court revoked his PRCS and imposed 120 days of additional custody.
Gates appeals contending the court erred in revoking his release. The dispute between the probation officer and Gates was that Gates was ordered to seek judicial approval if he wished to continue his use of "medical" marijuana. Gates declined to seek court approval because he had a marijuana card. On appeal Gates argues his marijuana card, issued by a doctor, was the equivalent of a prescription. Further, given he has such card there was no basis for the probation officer to order him to seek judicial approval for continued use of marijuana during his supervised release.
The parties here seek to embroil this court in a debate as to the extent to which a court can condition supervised release on a limitation of marijuana use when the parolee has a marijuana card. (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11362.795.) We decline the opportunity to join the debate, based on the record before us. As we will discuss, Gates's release was based in part on the condition he follow the directions of the probation officer. He was directed to seek court permission for continued marijuana use. He refused to follow the 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. 2 directions of the probation officer. Thus, it seems clear to us that Gates willfully violated a term of his release. We will affirm the order revoking his PRCS.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At the evidentiary hearing the probation officer testified she had repeatedly instructed Gates to seek approval from the court for his continued marijuana use. Gates told her he had a marijuana card, but never showed it to the probation officer.
Notwithstanding the probation officer's instructions, Gates did not seek approval of his marijuana use, because he did not think it necessary.
Gates testified he had been prescribed marijuana because he suffered from glaucoma, arthritis and "deep anxiety."
The parties stipulated that Gates had a marijuana card.
DISCUSSION
Gates contends the court should not have revoked his release since his marijuana card was equivalent to a prescription, thus he was not using a controlled substance without a prescription. Further, Gates argues he was not required under section 11362.795 to seek court approval of his marijuana use, because he was entitled to use marijuana.
Regarding his argument he had a "prescription," the court did not revoke his release for using a controlled substance without a prescription. Rather, the court assumed the card was equivalent to a prescription and did not revoke his release on that ground.
The court only revoked release on the ground Gates had refused to follow the directions of the probation officer.
3 Turning then to the probation officer's directions. Gates tested positive for marijuana on about 12 occasions. The probation officer told him that even though he had a card, he needed to get the court's approval. It is undisputed Gates declined to do so.
It is well established that a court may impose restrictions on otherwise lawful activities, as a condition of probation, where such limitation is necessary to aid the person in the successful completion of probation. (People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 753; People v. Brooks (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1352.)
Section 11362.795, passed after the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5), provides that a parolee or probationer may request the court to permit the person to use medical marijuana during the person's period of supervision. The section makes provision for a parolee to seek review of the decision to deny such use of marijuana.
(§ 11362.795, subd. (b)(2)-(3).)
In People v. Moret (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 839, 853, the court interpreted section 11362.795, and upheld a decision to deny a probationer use of medical marijuana during the period of probation supervision. We agree with the court in Moret. Any different interpretation of that section would be unreasonable. If the Legislature permits probationers and parolees to seek modification of the conditions of their release to allow them to use medical marijuana, the statute must also contemplate that in some cases the requests will be denied.
In this case we do not have to consider whether and on what basis a court might properly deny a request for modification. Here, Gates was only directed to seek court approval, which he declined to do. Plainly, he willfully failed to comply with the 4 condition of his release that required him to follow the directions of his probation officer.
The court properly revoked his release.
DISPOSITION
The order revoking Gates's PRCS is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Barajas No. H036383 · 2011-08-23
- People v. Brooks B216238 · 2010-04-07
- People v. Moret No A123591 · 2010-01-22