COURT: DRUG LENIENCY LAW NOT RETROACTIVE

The voter-approved measure granting drug treatment instead of jail time to
minor drug offenders does not apply to narcotics cases on appeal when the
measure was enacted, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday in San
Francisco.

The 6-1 decision means dozens of drug offenders don't qualify for leniency
under Proposition 36. The case centered on offenders convicted before the
measure was enacted, but whose convictions were not final because they were
on appeal after July 1, 2001, when the measure became law.

"The act was not intended to apply retroactively to this subset of cases,"
Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote.

In a lone dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown said the majority took an
"unnecessarily narrow assessment" of the electorate's intent when it
adopted the initiative in 2000. The initiative did not become law until the
following year to allow the courts time to prepare.

"Proposition 36 may reasonably be construed to extend to defendants whose
conviction for a non-violent drug offense was not final as of July 1,
2001," Brown wrote.

It was the high court's second interpretation of the Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act, which voters approved as a means of compassion -- and
reducing pressure on crowded jails -- for small-time drug offenders.

Last month, the high court ruled that trial judges cannot override the
language of the proposition by granting treatment to low-level drug
offenders who have recent criminal histories.

In the June ruling, Baxter wrote that drug offenders who have committed
recent felonies or were in prison within five years of a narcotics arrest
do not qualify for leniency. The Supreme Court said any other policy
violates the initiative's plain language.

Proposition 36 allows people arrested for possessing drugs for personal use
to go to treatment instead of jail. Those who complete the so-called
drug-diversion program have the arrests removed from their records. More
than 20,000 people have qualified for treatment.