In what circumstances have courts found no abuse of the dismissal statute?

In finding no abuse of discretion we note that the two principal cases relied on by the People are distinguishable. In People v. McAlonan (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 982, 99 Cal.Rptr. 733, the defendant had been charged with possession of marijuana. After the parties rested during a court trial, the trial court delayed the case in order to determine through the probation department what effect a conviction would have on the defendant's plans to enlist in the United States Navy. (Id. at p. 984, 99 Cal.Rptr. 733.) While the investigation was pending the trial court entered an order dismissing the charge,¹¹ noting generally that "the interests of the defendant and of his rehabilitation, and the interests of society in his rehabilitation" would be better served by dismissal. (Ibid . )

The appellate court reversed the dismissal finding that the conclusory language used by the trial court as justification for the dismissal did not satisfy the legal requirement in section 1385 that the court's minutes reflect the factual basis for the decision.¹² The court noted in dicta that a proper dismissal required a balancing of society's interest against that of the defendant's rehabilitation. Using that scale the court concluded that society's interest in having the dismissal statute "dispensed with an even hand" precluded the tool of dismissal from being used simply to avoid a conviction. (People v. McAlonan , supra , 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 987, 99 Cal.Rptr. 733.)