People v. Juhasz

In People v. Juhasz (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 133, the defendant had failed at two prior attempts at Proposition 36 treatment. Based on these two failures, two trial judges found him unamenable within the meaning of section1210.1, subdivision (b)(5). One of the judges reasoned he was unamenable because "'he has had many opportunities and squandered them all.'" ( People v. Juhasz, supra, at p. 137.) Noting that clear and convincing evidence means evidence which is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt, the appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of unamenability. (Id. at p. 139.) It reasoned: "While it is true that defendant's record supported the conclusion that he had 'squandered' opportunities for treatment in the past cases, and that fact is not without significance, the court gave no consideration in the present case to what treatment might now be available to defendant within the meaning of section 1210, subdivision (b)." (Ibid.) The trial court ignored the defendant's request for treatment, simply suggesting "that no matter the prospects for success in the future, his prior missteps foreclosed consideration of further treatment attempts. Whatever appeal the court's logic might have in the abstract, it is at odds with the intent of Proposition 36 as expressed in subdivision (b)(5)." (Ibid.)