For a case discussing the mandatory SJF drug probation law from last session, check out: the Third Court of Appeals opinion.

See, here in Williamson County, we are compassionate conservatives who want no drug user left behind.

Wouldn't refusal to attend treatment (and the anticipated revocation of supervision) been 1)faster 2) easier, and 3) cheaper than the appeal? Then the appellant gets what he wants (imposition of the sentence).

While there is no doubt that the court could choose not to impose a sentence after the decision to proceed with adjudication of Holcomb's guilt, I must question why "the prosecutor called the trial court's attention to the provisions of article 42.12, section 15(a), (c) as amended, which became effective September 1, 2003, prior to the hearing" and more particularly why the prosecutor would note "the new law mandated that appellant now be placed on 'straight probation' in this type of state jail felony case". This "note" was, in my opinion, contrary to the last sentence of art. 42.12 sec. 5(b) (which was not modified or affected by HB 2668). For some of the reasons noted by Holcomb, it amazes me that the State would argue for suspension of a sentence immediately after showing a defendant cannot conform to the requirements of community supervision (whether the second period of supervision is considered redundant or not). I guess the thought was that because Holcomb had demonstrated beyond all doubt that he would not be able to discontinue use of methamphetamine that the State now owed him some more intensive treatment. It appears Williamson County must have had better luck with those it sends to SAFPF than we have had. Especially with the modified (truncated) treatment plan, I just would not think Holcomb or those like him should be mandated to SAFPF.

Just looking at it pragmatically, the guy has already done several months of confinement in our local treatment facility. Then he did several months of confinement in a SAFPF. In fact, he was sitting in county jail and then a SAFPF while his appeal was pending.

And, should he ever be revoked, he will not get credit for a single day of that confinement time, because it was for treatment, not punishment. So, I'm not too worried about rushing to revocation.

I also don't think the defendant is really in the best position to know whether treatment will do him any good. Maybe, maybe not.

Now, I certainly think the mandatory probation law could use some tweaking to avoid "redundant probation" when it is pointless. But the general concept of avoiding an expensive prison bed for as long as possible is sound. I want murderers, rapists and robbers to serve every day for their crimes.

I will not belabor the point, but assuming SAFPF does Holcomb no good, then what has been saved? The cost of his SAFPF bed was higher than a regular bed and I feel certain you will see him challenge the constitutionality of 42.03 sec. 2(a) in much the same way sec. 15(h)(2) was challenged in Harris once he is revoked a second time. Now, if you helped him turn his life around by further treatment, I guess my thoughts will have no relevance with respect to that particular case. Keep us posted on his progress.

The "we are out of space so lets keep the 'minor' offenders out of prison" argument is a pragmatic one, but not one I really like. I have an entirely different view on how to really fight the war on drugs.

Yes, everyone has a different view on how to fight the war on drugs. But that's partly why we make so little progress -- everyone is fighting their own war.

At least the Legislature has taken a statewide point of view on how to approach low-level drug users. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is at least consistent.