Why Hiring an Experienced Criminal Defense Firm Can Assure You Are Given Access to All Available Court Programs

Defendant, Oscar Armando Ochoa pled guilty to possessing cocaine after the trial court denied his motion to defer entry of judgment under penal code §1000. On appeal in California, Mr. Ochoa argued that the court erred in finding that his January 2006 conviction for possession of marijuana occurring more than two years before his current offense did not render him ineligible for deferred entry of judgment under penal code §1000.

The prosecution took the position that he was ineligible presumably because he was precluded from satisfying the condition that he “have no conviction for any offense involving controlled substances prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense.” PC §1000 (a)(1).

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District disagreed with the prosecution. It held that Mr. Ochoa’s previous conviction for marijuana possession should have been destroyed after two years as required by Health & Safety Code §11361.5 and §11361.7 (a). Therefore, the previous marijuana charge could not have been considered by the trial court in determining Mr. Ochoa’s eligibility for deferred entry of judgment pursuant to penal code §1000.

Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorneys in California know what it takes to argue your rights in a case similar to the one described above. That can mean the difference between having your matter settled under deferred entry of judgment or having to plea to a drug offense. Call now to speak to an experienced California criminal law attorney at Wallin & Klarich.