Opinion
G028162.
7-29-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY LOYD BUTTRAM, Defendant and Appellant.
Amanda F. Doerrer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Laura Whitcomb Halgren and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Based on the courts indicated sentence of a maximum of six years, defendant Randy Loyd Buttram pleaded guilty to possessing heroin and methamphetamine for sale and admitted two prior convictions. At sentencing, defendant moved the court to stay the sentence and initiate civil narcotics addict commitment proceedings. The court declined to do so and sentenced defendant to a total term of six years in state prison. He contends the court abused its discretion by refusing to initiate civil narcotics addict commitment proceedings.
We invited supplemental briefing as to whether the appeal was properly brought under an exception to the certificate of probable cause requirement and concluded that it was not. We therefore dismissed the appeal in an opinion filed on December 31, 2001, without addressing the merits of defendants claim. The California Supreme Court granted review, and on May 29, 2003, the court issued an opinion reversing our decision and remanding the matter to us for further proceedings. (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773.) Accordingly, we issue a new opinion and affirm the judgment.
A trial court may refuse to initiate civil narcotics addict commitment proceedings if "in the opinion of the judge, the defendants record and probation report indicate such a pattern of criminality that he or she does not constitute a fit subject for commitment under this section." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3051.) "A trial courts preliminary determination under section 3051 of a defendants fitness for rehabilitative treatment necessarily involves an assessment . . . [of] whether the defendants main problem is drug abuse or a criminal orientation as reflected in a pattern of criminality." (People v. Cruz (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 413, 421, 266 Cal. Rptr. 29.) The broad discretion given the court to evaluate such information "will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of abuse. [Citations.]" (Ibid .)
The record indicates the trial court did not find defendant to be a fit subject for commitment in view of his 30-year history of addiction and commission of drug-related crimes, including thefts to support his addiction, his current conviction for possession of narcotics for sale, and the collateral effects of his crimes on others in society. Although the court did not expressly state in the record that it was denying his motion for these reasons, it is obvious the courts decision was based on defendants extensive criminal background. "Since the record discloses facts which adequately support the reasons for denying the initiation of [California Rehabilitation Center] commitment proceedings, the sentencing courts choice is presumed to be based on those facts. [Citations.]" (People v. McLemore (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 601, 610.) Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to initiate proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051. (People v. Rodriguez (1970) 4 Cal. App. 3d 361, 363, 84 Cal. Rptr. 359 [no abuse of discretion where pattern of criminality included sale of narcotics to others and stealing to support habit].)
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J. OLEARY, J.