Pubdate: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Copyright: 2001 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle COURT BACKS HELP, NOT JAIL FOR DRUGS Mandate For Treatment Given Maximum Effect The first appellate court to consider California's voter-approved overhaul of drug sentencing ruled yesterday that people sentenced after July 1 for possessing drugs are entitled to treatment instead of jail. In a decision that affects hundreds or even thousands of defendants statewide, a three-judge Court of Appeal panel in Los Angeles said Proposition 36 applied to everyone waiting to be sentenced when it took effect in July, no matter when they committed their crimes. Proposition 36, passed by 61 percent of the voters last November, requires probation and mandatory treatment for drug possession. Those who repeatedly fail to complete a treatment program or refuse to take part can be sentenced to jail or prison. The initiative delayed the change until July 1 to give counties time to establish drug programs, and it specified that the law covered defendants convicted after that date. Citing the measure's purpose of rehabilitating as many defendants as possible, the court said a "conviction" is complete only when the judge pronounces final judgment and imposes sentence. Prosecutors and judges in many counties have taken a narrower view of Proposition 36, applying it only to cases in which the jury verdict or guilty plea was given after July 1, said Lawrence Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association. He said some defendants sentenced to jail in those counties could petition for release under yesterday's ruling. San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, the only district attorney in the state to endorse Proposition 36, already followed the practice decreed by the court, said Liz Aguilar-Tarchi, chief of narcotics prosecution in Hallinan's office. "The outcome is to respect the will of the voters so the addicted person gets treatment instead of punishment," said Alex Ricciardulli, the deputy Los Angeles public defender who argued the case. In an unusual alignment, the prosecutor's office agreed, although it presented opposing arguments to the court. "It's consistent with what the voters intended, trying to help these people, not put them in jail," said George M. Palmer, head deputy in the Los Angeles district attorney's office. The case involved Janet DeLong, who was convicted in May of possessing cocaine. She was sentenced July 12 to five months in jail by a judge who ruled she was not covered by Proposition 36, but the appellate court ordered her released a week later while it reviewed the issue. - --- MAP posted-by: Rebel