About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

68 California Attorney General Reports and Opinions 1 (1985)

handle is hein.sag/sagca0068 and id is 1 raw text is: OPINIONS
OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion No. 83-1105-December 28, 1984
SUBJECT: AUTHORITY OF COUNTY TO ESTABLISH A DIVERSION
PROGRAM FOR DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH SALES OF SMALL
AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA-A county may not establish a nonstatuto-
ry pretrial diversion program for defendants charged with sales of small
amounts of marijuana.
Requested by: DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
Opinion by: JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General
John T. Murphy, Deputy
The Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney, City and County of San Francisco,
has requested our opinion on the following question:
May a county establish a nonstatutory pretrial diversion program for defendants
charged with sales of small amounts of marijuana?
CONCLUSION
A county may not establish a nonstatutory pretrial diversion program for
defendants charged with sales of small amounts of marijuana.
ANALYSIS
The Legislature in chapter 2.5 of the Penal Code has established in controlled
substances cases a procedure known as pretrial diversion. (Pen. Code, ch. 2.5, %§ 1000-
1000.5.) Diversion under chapter 2.5 allows certain controlled substances offenders,
upon meeting statutory criteria, to bypass criminal prosecutions by completing
community programs. (Pen. Code, % 1000, subd. (a) and 1000.1; see 4 ALR 4th
147.) The purposes of the controlled substances diversion statutes are to permit the
courts to identify the experimental or tentative user before he or she becomes deeply
involved with drugs, to expose the person to community educational and counseling
programs, to restore him or her to productive citizenship without the stigma of a
criminal conviction, and to reduce the clogging of the criminal justice system. (People
v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 59, 61-62; California's Experience
With Pretrial Diversion (1975) 7 Southwestern University Law Review 418-420.)
To be eligible for chapter 2.5 diversion, the defendant must not have had a prior

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most