Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Judge May Prohibit Medical Marijuana for One on Probation
Our office finds that besides keeping a job or continuing to support a family, many folks prefer probation to jail or prison so that they can continue using marijuana to relax. Face it, the use of marijuana is a big part of the life of many people. It helps them cope with stress and pain. Going to jail or prison ends that part of their life. But does being ordered to probation preserve it, even if it is recommended by a “doctor?”
Hughes appealed the probation condition, on grounds that his medical use of marijuana is lawful under California Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 (The Compassionate Use Act of 1996).
The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Steven Ebbert Hughes (2012 DJDAR 1153), affirmed the trial court. Its analysis began with noting that Judge Freer asked Hughes’ counsel his position on such a probation condition. Hughes’ counsel replied that such a condition would be appropriate for someone using their license to sell dope on the street, however, he argued that Hughes’ case was “entirely different.”
Judge Freer then expressed concern about the adequacy of the medical evaluation Hughes’ doctor performed prior to issuing Hughes a medical marijuana prescription. In the trial court’s view, the evaluation was “most cursory.” Freer stated on the record that he thought there was no “real physical examination, no blood work, anything of that nature.”
In reviewing the trial court’s condition of probation, the Appellate Court noted that a trial court has broad, but not unlimited, discretion in setting the terms and conditions of probation. On appeal, the higher court must find an abuse of discretion to overturn the trial court.
For more information about probation in general, click on the following articles:
Contact Greg Hill & Associates
Steven Hughes was convicted of cultivating marijuana (a violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11358), possession of marijuana for sale (a violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11359), and transportation of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana (a violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11360).Why This Article Matters: A judge can impose certain terms and conditions of probation that may seem to restrict one’s legal rights. This can include a rule that the probationer not use marijuana. This is legal and enforceable, much to our client’s surprise.
His conviction followed a traffic stop wherein his vehicle registration had expired more than six months earlier. When this is the case, police may impound the car. Pursuant to impounding the vehicle, the officers found thirty-eight small marijuana plants. Hughes claimed he was transporting the small plants to a collective at the time, from which he would receive in exchange, medicinal marijuana for his donation.
Hughes appealed the probation condition, on grounds that his medical use of marijuana is lawful under California Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 (The Compassionate Use Act of 1996).
The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Steven Ebbert Hughes (2012 DJDAR 1153), affirmed the trial court. Its analysis began with noting that Judge Freer asked Hughes’ counsel his position on such a probation condition. Hughes’ counsel replied that such a condition would be appropriate for someone using their license to sell dope on the street, however, he argued that Hughes’ case was “entirely different.”
Judge Freer then expressed concern about the adequacy of the medical evaluation Hughes’ doctor performed prior to issuing Hughes a medical marijuana prescription. In the trial court’s view, the evaluation was “most cursory.” Freer stated on the record that he thought there was no “real physical examination, no blood work, anything of that nature.”
In reviewing the trial court’s condition of probation, the Appellate Court noted that a trial court has broad, but not unlimited, discretion in setting the terms and conditions of probation. On appeal, the higher court must find an abuse of discretion to overturn the trial court.
Here, the Appellate Court found that the discretion was not abused because the terms had some connection to the conviction, i.e. sales, and forbade conduct related to future criminality. Therefore, the term of probation prohibiting Hughes from possessing marijuana even for medical use was valid. The Appellate Court consequently affirmed the terms of probation.
For more information about probation in general, click on the following articles:
For case summaries of selected cases our firm has handled, click here.
Contact Greg Hill & Associates
