About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


68 California Attorney General Reports and Opinions 1 (1985)

handle is hein.sag/sagca0068 and id is 1 raw text is: OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA Opinion No. 83-1105-December 28, 1984 SUBJECT: AUTHORITY OF COUNTY TO ESTABLISH A DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH SALES OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA-A county may not establish a nonstatuto- ry pretrial diversion program for defendants charged with sales of small amounts of marijuana. Requested by: DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Opinion by: JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General John T. Murphy, Deputy The Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney, City and County of San Francisco, has requested our opinion on the following question: May a county establish a nonstatutory pretrial diversion program for defendants charged with sales of small amounts of marijuana? CONCLUSION A county may not establish a nonstatutory pretrial diversion program for defendants charged with sales of small amounts of marijuana. ANALYSIS The Legislature in chapter 2.5 of the Penal Code has established in controlled substances cases a procedure known as pretrial diversion. (Pen. Code, ch. 2.5, %§ 1000- 1000.5.) Diversion under chapter 2.5 allows certain controlled substances offenders, upon meeting statutory criteria, to bypass criminal prosecutions by completing community programs. (Pen. Code, % 1000, subd. (a) and 1000.1; see 4 ALR 4th 147.) The purposes of the controlled substances diversion statutes are to permit the courts to identify the experimental or tentative user before he or she becomes deeply involved with drugs, to expose the person to community educational and counseling programs, to restore him or her to productive citizenship without the stigma of a criminal conviction, and to reduce the clogging of the criminal justice system. (People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 59, 61-62; California's Experience With Pretrial Diversion (1975) 7 Southwestern University Law Review 418-420.) To be eligible for chapter 2.5 diversion, the defendant must not have had a prior