Filed 9/22/15 P. v. Gates CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066763
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. CPR140262)
WILLIAM GATES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G.
Woods, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Peter Quon, Jr. and Stacy Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
William Gates was released from prison for the second time in March 2014. He
was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). In August 2014, the
probation department filed a petition to revoke Gates's PRCS on the grounds he had
violated the conditions of his release.
Following an evidentiary hearing on September 17, 2014, the court found Gates
was in violation of the terms of his release because he refused to follow the directions of
the probation officer. The court revoked his PRCS and imposed 120 days of additional
custody.
Gates appeals contending the court erred in revoking his release. The dispute
between the probation officer and Gates was that Gates was ordered to seek judicial
approval if he wished to continue his use of "medical" marijuana. Gates declined to seek
court approval because he had a marijuana card. On appeal Gates argues his marijuana
card, issued by a doctor, was the equivalent of a prescription. Further, given he has such
card there was no basis for the probation officer to order him to seek judicial approval for
continued use of marijuana during his supervised release.
The parties here seek to embroil this court in a debate as to the extent to which a
court can condition supervised release on a limitation of marijuana use when the parolee
has a marijuana card. (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11362.795.) We decline the opportunity
to join the debate, based on the record before us. As we will discuss, Gates's release was
based in part on the condition he follow the directions of the probation officer. He was
directed to seek court permission for continued marijuana use. He refused to follow the
1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise
specified.
2
directions of the probation officer. Thus, it seems clear to us that Gates willfully violated
a term of his release. We will affirm the order revoking his PRCS.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At the evidentiary hearing the probation officer testified she had repeatedly
instructed Gates to seek approval from the court for his continued marijuana use. Gates
told her he had a marijuana card, but never showed it to the probation officer.
Notwithstanding the probation officer's instructions, Gates did not seek approval of his
marijuana use, because he did not think it necessary.
Gates testified he had been prescribed marijuana because he suffered from
glaucoma, arthritis and "deep anxiety."
The parties stipulated that Gates had a marijuana card.
DISCUSSION
Gates contends the court should not have revoked his release since his marijuana
card was equivalent to a prescription, thus he was not using a controlled substance
without a prescription. Further, Gates argues he was not required under section
11362.795 to seek court approval of his marijuana use, because he was entitled to use
marijuana.
Regarding his argument he had a "prescription," the court did not revoke his
release for using a controlled substance without a prescription. Rather, the court assumed
the card was equivalent to a prescription and did not revoke his release on that ground.
The court only revoked release on the ground Gates had refused to follow the directions
of the probation officer.
3
Turning then to the probation officer's directions. Gates tested positive for
marijuana on about 12 occasions. The probation officer told him that even though he had
a card, he needed to get the court's approval. It is undisputed Gates declined to do so.
It is well established that a court may impose restrictions on otherwise lawful
activities, as a condition of probation, where such limitation is necessary to aid the person
in the successful completion of probation. (People v. Barajas (2011) 198
Cal.App.4th 748, 753; People v. Brooks (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1352.)
Section 11362.795, passed after the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5),
provides that a parolee or probationer may request the court to permit the person to use
medical marijuana during the person's period of supervision. The section makes
provision for a parolee to seek review of the decision to deny such use of marijuana.
(§ 11362.795, subd. (b)(2)-(3).)
In People v. Moret (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 839, 853, the court interpreted section
11362.795, and upheld a decision to deny a probationer use of medical marijuana during
the period of probation supervision. We agree with the court in Moret. Any different
interpretation of that section would be unreasonable. If the Legislature permits
probationers and parolees to seek modification of the conditions of their release to allow
them to use medical marijuana, the statute must also contemplate that in some cases the
requests will be denied.
In this case we do not have to consider whether and on what basis a court might
properly deny a request for modification. Here, Gates was only directed to seek court
approval, which he declined to do. Plainly, he willfully failed to comply with the
4
condition of his release that required him to follow the directions of his probation officer.
The court properly revoked his release.
DISPOSITION
The order revoking Gates's PRCS is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
5