Error and/or relief
On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions regarding association with minors, completion of a sex offender treatment program, polygraph examinations, possession of pornography, electronic search, and electronic monitoring. We conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them
First Holding:
Regarding the conditions of probation. we conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them.
Authority:
PEN 1203.1
Second Holding:
A probation condition is valid under the statutory scheme if it relates to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, relates to other criminal conduct, or requires or forbids conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.
Authority:
People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 498
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
Third Holding:
The Lent test is conjunctive—all three factors must be found in order to invalidate a probation condition.
Authority:
People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3
Fourth Holding:
A trial court abuses its discretion only when the probation conditions imposed are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the bounds of reason.
Authority:
People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234
Fifth Holding:
Even valid probation conditions must not be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Vagueness considers whether a condition is sufficiently precise to give the probationer fair warning of what conduct is required or prohibited; overbreadth considers the closeness of fit between the state’s interest in reformation and rehabilitation and the burden imposed on the [probationer’s] constitutional rights.
Authority:
People v. Rhinehart (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1126-1127
In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 260
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890
Sixth Holding:
A probation condition must be sufficiently definite for the probationer to know what conduct is required or prohibited, and to allow the court to determine when that condition has been violated.
Authority:
People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500
Seventh Holding:
A probation condition also must be closely tailored to its legitimate objective to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad
Authority:
People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890
People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102 [such conditions must be narrowly drawn]
Eighth Holding:
We review de novo constitutional challenges to probation conditions.
Authority:
People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172