DEJ

For violations of certain specified drug crimes, a defendant may be eligible to participate in a deferred entry of judgment program.  Deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a proscribed period of time with certain conditions and a defendant's guilty plea.  If a defendant is found to be eligible for DEJ, he or she must plead guilty to the crime charged and waive time for the entry of judgment.  Entry of judgment on the defendant's plea is then deferred pending successful completion of a drug program.  Should the defendant successfully complete the program, criminal proceedings against the defendant are dismissed, and the defendant may legally answer that he or she has never been arrested for, nor charged with, the offense.  Should the defendant not successfully complete the program, however, the court will enter judgment and schedule a sentencing hearing.

Proposition 36

Proposition 36 was passed by the electorate on November 7, 2000, and became effective July 1, 2001.  It mandates program and drug treatment for defendants convicted of a "nonviolent drug possession offense."  It prohibits incarceration as an initial term of probation, but does permit incarceration for a subsequent violation of probation.  The proposition also establishes procedures for violations of probation or parole that involve nonviolent drug offenses.  If the defendant successfully completes the drug treatment program, the defendant may petition the sentencing court to dismiss all charges against him or her.  If the court finds that the defendant has successfully completed the program and has substantially complied with the conditions of probation, the courtmust set aside and dismiss the indictment or information against the defendant.  The arrest will be deemed never to have occurred.  Notwithstanding the dismissal, the defendant remains subject to restriction on possession of concealable firearm, and must disclose the arrest and conviction in response to any law enforcement inquiry.  The defendant must also disclose the arrest and conviction in any application for public office, peace officer employment, licensing by any state or local agency, contracting with the state lottery, or purposes of serving on a jury.

Print this Article   Email this Article  

Text Size:  A | A | A

By  Scott Smith

Record Staff Writer

May 01, 2010 12:00 AM

STOCKTON - Revelations a week ago that methamphetamine samples at a state crime lab in Ripon may have been altered continue to reverberate in the San Joaquin County legal community.

Many local defense attorneys believe the state drug bust on the lab casts serious doubt on its credibility in handling evidence. Some attorneys are considering strategies to attack past drug convictions. Yet another said he doubts that the acts of one bad analyst will have far-reaching ramifications.

"It's the exception, not the rule," said private Stockton attorney Michael Platt. "It's more important to some attorneys than others."

The California Department of Justice announced last week that a protocol breach in the handling of meth samples had occurred at the Central Valley Bureau of Forensic Service laboratory in Ripon. Certain evidence handled by a particular analyst weighed less than originally reported.

The lab serves San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced and Calaveras counties.

The unidentified criminalist was put on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.

Platt said that the criminalist in question analyzed drugs allegedly seized from one of his clients who awaits trial. The controversy likely won't benefit his client, Platt said.

"The cases that it will impact are those where there is no dope left," said Platt, explaining that in older cases, drug evidence is destroyed after analysis.

Other attorneys said they are gearing up for motions to overturn past convictions.

Stockton attorney Gregory Davenport said that in light of the news, he's preparing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that put one client in state prison a year ago. His client took a plea deal for two years in prison, Davenport said.

In that case, police in Stockton stopped his client and found suspected meth in his pocket. Davenport said the analyst in question was the one who confirmed it as meth, and now questions over that state employee's conduct raise suspicion about the entire criminal-justice system.

"When you have somebody in that type of position engaging in this type of conduct, it creates reasonable doubt," Davenport said.

The San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office declined to comment on the investigation nor say how many criminal cases it puts into question.

The Ripon lab's assistant director, Katy Ciula, referred questions to state justice officials, who did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Suspects arrested with small quantities of meth might also benefit from the lab's controversy, said Patrick Piggott, a Stockton attorney and dean of the Humphreys College Laurence Drivon School of Law.

A missing quantity of some drug samples won't make a difference to the outcome of most cases. But it could in those where a suspect is charged with possession for sales. In these, the weight determines if a charge applies, Piggott said.

"That's the one time when weight is most important," he said.

Attorney Doug Goss said he believes the drug-testing process has been corrupted. He wonders now if the analyst was mixing up evidence and taking other substances collected as evidence.

"I'm in the process right now of having all my old cases pulled back," Goss said. "I'm trying to sort it out myself."

If you have been charged with a drug crime, contact Stockton drug attorney Lance Jacot at The Jacot Law Firm for a free consultation.  (209) 463-1800.  Attorney Lance Jacot has been representing people accused of drug related offenses for over a decade in the central valley.