In People v. Windus (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, the Court of Appeal held the defendant was entitled to present a CUA defense to a possession for sale charge, even though he had not consulted with his physician annually, as the physician had recommended. At an Evidence Code section 402 hearing on whether the defendant could proceed with a medical marijuana defense, his doctor testified he had provided a written recommendation for marijuana use for pain, he had not recommended a particular amount, and if the defendant was eating marijuana, rather than smoking it, the quantity in his possession was not unreasonable. (Windus, at pp. 637-638.) His doctor also testified he had recommended that the defendant return annually for evaluation. (Id. at p. 638.) The trial court precluded the defendant from proceeding with a compassionate use defense, concluding the amount of marijuana he possessed exceeded that which reasonably could have been for medicinal purposes. (Id. at p. 639.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the portion of the Medical Marijuana Program that limited the amount of marijuana that could be possessed was an impermissible modification of the CUA. (Id. at p. 640.) The appellate court also concluded the defendant was a "qualified user" because his doctor's recommendation for annual evaluations was only a "suggestion" and there was "no evidence" the defendant's failure to obtain such evaluations "invalidated" the doctor's medical marijuana recommendation. (Id. at p. 641.)