Court Opinion

ID: 9751551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:35:24.115679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:44.153949
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Concurring.
My reading of the record convinces me the superior court has been well aware of Planavsky’s drug abuse problem since *1316at least April 7, 1992, when he pleaded guilty to one count of residential burglary. The Tahl form (In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449]) included defendant’s initials in the box indicating he would be placed on probation, but a violation could result in the imposition of a maximum five-year term. Although several conditions of probation required his cooperation in drug treatment programs, the Tahl form box advising that California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) proceedings might be instituted was X’d out.
Planavsky was found to be in violation of his probation a mere seven months later, on November 12, 1992. Probation was revoked, a four-year prison sentence was imposed, execution was suspended, and probation was reinstated. A new condition of this probation required Planavsky to enroll in a residential drug treatment program, and “the balance of any Orange County [j]ail sentence [could] be served in that program.”
When defendant violated probation again on March 25, 1994, more than a year after the prison sentence had been imposed, and the judge decided not to reinstate probation, he had no jurisdiction to do anything other than to order Planavsky to begin his previously ordered prison term. (People v. Chagolla (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [199 Cal.Rptr. 181].) With 912 days of actual and conduct credits, defendant has by now completed the sentence; and the last thing he wants, presumably, is a ticket to CRC. The majority spins its wheels for naught; the appeal should be dismissed as moot.
Moreover, the majority concedes defendant cannot prevail under existing law.1 And his criminality was far too excessive for a CRC commitment in any event.2 The majority has opinion, needs case; but this is not the one. Publication of hyperbolic dicta is rarely useful to the bench and bar.

The result suggested by the case law does fly directly in the face of section 3051 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, however. When the Legislature says “shall,” I tend to think it means it.

A sampling of Planavsky’s sorry record includes giving false identification to a peace officer (1988), possession of a dangerous drug (1989), felony joyriding (1990), receiving stolen property (1990), possession of a hypodermic needle and giving false identification to a peace officer (1991), receiving stolen property (1991), first degree burglary (1992), joyriding (1992), numerous other arrests for serious offenses, and a fistful of probation violations as well.