(Super. Ct. No. CRF090002)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Shannon Lynn Altrock, who had been granted deferred entry of judgment (diversion) under Penal Code section 1000 et seq.,*fn1 was terminated from such diversion based on her inability to pay the fees of the program to which she had been referred.
On appeal, she contends her termination from diversion for this reason violated the applicable statutory scheme and is unconstitutional. The People agree termination was improper. We agree and reverse the judgment and order. (People v. Trask (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 387, 394-397 (Trask).)
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possessing hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), and was granted diversion under the provisions of section 1000 et seq. in February 2009.
The trial court ordered defendant to report to the probation department and to enroll in and complete a certified drug diversion program and pay $235 in fines. Three months later, defendant's probation officer reported that she was "doing well," had "been making monthly payments," and had tested negative for drug use, but she had not yet enrolled in a residential treatment program.
At a diversion review hearing in December 2009, the trial court noted that defendant had no positive drug test results, but she had neither enrolled in the required classes nor paid any fees or fines. Since defendant's living arrangement had "become stabilized," the court hoped she would focus on fulfilling those requirements.
In anticipation of a March 2010 diversion review hearing, the probation department reported to the trial court that defendant had failed to attend or complete a drug diversion program and it urged the court to find her in violation of the diversion order.
At the hearing on her alleged violation of the diversion order, defendant testified she had planned and agreed to complete an approved drug counseling program. She had chosen the least expensive one, which cost $220, because it was the only program that allowed installment payments of between $10 to $20 each week, payable before each weekly class. Defendant testified she attended five classes, but then could not afford to make the payments and ultimately stopped going to class because she could not pay. She has continued her job search, but had not worked in the last 18 to 20 months.
Defendant submitted a two-page written summary of her monthly income and expenditures between February 2009 and April 2010. She testified that during this period her only income was $200 or less per month in food stamps, plus small amounts she occasionally earned from baby-sitting, house cleaning or selling personal property, and a $20 birthday gift she received from her grandfather. She spent $40 for drug counseling classes in or about April 2009, and small sums on toiletries and bus fare; "all other clothes and items acquired in this time were given to me by friends and family members, or from the ...