A curious case on Prop. 36 
Apparently the Yolo County district attorney decided to oppose the termination of probation on the grounds that only the defendant could initiate this process, not the probation department. The trial court agreed, but the Third District panel says “We think the trial court took too literal a view of section 1210.1(d)(1).”
I can’t really fathom the motivation for the DA to interpret this statute in this way to start with, but obviously not all the facts are apparent from reading the appellate opinion.