In People v. Zeigler (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 638, defendant filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation regarding two prior drug convictions. (Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 647.) The district attorney opposed the petition on the grounds it was barred by defendant's most recent nonviolent drug offense. The district attorney maintained that while defendant was entitled to "a record clearance under Proposition 36, that does not change the fact that he broke the law by possessing drugs in 2007." (Id. at p. 649.) The trial court granted the petition after determining it could not consider the non-violent drug offense due to defendant's completion of a drug treatment program. The appellate court reversed, explaining, "a Proposition 36 dismissal is not a dismissal for all purposes. Under section 1210.1, former subdivision (d), 'a conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense is "deemed not to have occurred" for some purposes but not others, and a defendant is released from some but not all disabilities resulting from that conviction.' ." (Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) The court in Zeigler concluded, "Unlike section 1210.1, former subdivision (d), which focuses on and limits the use of 'a record pertaining to an arrest or conviction resulting in successful completion of a drug treatment program under' Proposition 36, the statutes governing certificates of rehabilitation have a broader focus and instruct the court to consider the petitioner's conduct throughout the period of rehabilitation. Section 4852.05 provides that to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation, the petitioner 'shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.'" (Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 662-663.) In Zeigler, the court cited to several sections of the statutory scheme describing the broad scope of evidence a trial court may review. It surmised, "these many provisions give trial courts a great deal of discretion in determining the extent of the evidence presented at a hearing on a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court may, but is not required to, order the production of the records listed in section 4852.1. The court may require any testimony it deems necessary, including that of police officers. ( 4852.11.) The court may, but is not required to, order the district attorney to investigate the petitioner's residence, criminal record, and conduct during the period of rehabilitation and report to the court on such matters. . And once the trial court orders the production of records, or orders a peace officer to testify, or orders a report from the district attorney, persons subject to the court's orders have a mandatory duty to respond to the court. ." (Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 664.) It held, "In view of our construction of section 1210.1 and the statutes governing petitions for certificate of rehabilitation, we conclude that these statutory schemes do not preclude the presentation of evidence of the underlying conduct that led to defendant's arrest and conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense at the hearing on his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation." (Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 666.) It also concluded the court abused its discretion when it granted the petition for a certificate of rehabilitation because defendant engaged in illegal conduct less than seven years prior to the hearing on the petition. (Id. at p. 667.)