THE AUTHOR
Greg Hill
Court Incorrectly Grants Certificate of Rehabilitation by not Evaluating Recent Drug Offense
The Appellate Court then ruled that the trial court erred by not inquiring into Zeigler’s conduct in 2007 and evaluating it. This failure to consider such conduct was a mistake and consequently, the court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. BY GREG HILL
Mitchell Zeigler was convicted in 1989 of two felony counts of
transportation or sale of narcotics (Health and Safety Code § 11352)
in Santa Clara County. He was granted probation, but violated it in
1992 and consequently was committed to state prison. He was released
in 1999.
In 2000, Zeigler was arrested and convicted of possession of a
convicted substance (Health and Safety Code § 11350). He was granted
probation, conditioned upon his serving a small amount of time in
county jail, ending on April 19, 2000. He then successfully
completed probation.
On June 1, 2007, Zeigler filed a petition for a certificate of
rehabilitation regarding his felony convictions from 1989 and 2000.
However, at some time in 2007, Zeigler was again arrested for
possession of narcotics.
On October 22, 2007, counsel for Zeigler withdrew the petition for a
certificate of rehabilitation. In the same month, Zeigler was found
eligible for Proposition 36 for the 2007 drug offense and he entered
the program.
Zeigler then successfully completed the Prop 36 program in June,
2009. As a result, his plea was withdrawn, the judgment was set
aside and his 2007 case was dismissed.
On November 23, 2010, Zeigler filed a motion to renew his petition
for a certificate of rehabilitation regarding the same 1989 and 2000
convictions. In the motion, he argued that due to the nature of
those offenses, he was subject to a seven-year period of
rehabilitation. He argued that his seven year period started when he
was released from custody in April, 2000 and ended in April, 2007.
He argued that the seven-year period was not interrupted by his 2007
offense because the case was ultimately dismissed due to his
successful completion of Prop 36.
He acknowledged that there were no cases “dealing with the
intersection” of Prop 36 and the seven year period of
rehabilitation.
The prosecution argued that the request for a certificate should be
denied because the plain text of Penal Code § 4852.05 requires, the
applicant to, during the period of rehabilitation, “live an honest
and upright life… and obey the laws of the land.” As Zeigler
admitted he committed a felony in 2007, the petition should be
denied on that basis alone.
The Santa Clara County judge granted Zeigler’s application and the
People appealed to the Sixth Appellate District.
In People v. Mitchell Lewis Zeigler (2012 DJDAR 16066), the Sixth
Appellate District revered the trial court. The court first noted,
as if parenthetically and with some suggestion of irritation is that
Zeigler could have simply submitted a pardon application directly to
the governor under Penal Code § 4800. The court then explained its
reversal, explaining that the trial court had discretion to receive
evidence regarding the conduct that resulted in Zeigler’s 2007
arrest.
The Appellate Court then ruled that the trial court erred by not
inquiring into Zeigler’s conduct in 2007 and evaluating it. This
failure to consider such conduct was a mistake and consequently, the
court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.
The appellate court noted that the record from the trial court was
quite “sparse.” There was no information concerning the type or
amount of drugs involved, the circumstances of the arrest, whether
defendant completed Prop 36 with any positive drug tests. By noting
such missing information, the appellate court seemed to suggest the
trial court should address such facts if Zeigler asked for a further
hearing on his application for a certificate of rehabilitation.
About the Author
If you are charged with grand theft, do not trust your defense to an inexperienced lawyer who may not understand the current state of the law. Greg Hill is an attorney in Torrance, California. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Greg Hill & Associates represents clients in Torrance, Long Beach
and the surrounding areas in theft matters, as well as DUI, domestic
violence and restraining orders, among other crimes
