Error and/or relief
We find that the nature of the required program is impermissibly vague in the condition of probation that the defendant “enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation program as directed by the probation officer or as specifically ordered as a term of probation, and shall not leave or terminate such programs without the permission of the probation officer.”
First Holding:
Applying de novo review, we address each challenge to a probation condition separately.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902
Second Holding:
It is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer. Although a probation condition need not be set forth with mathematical certainty, the language used must have reasonable specificity. Here, such specificity is lacking. The program choices for the probation officer are open-ended, ranging from education to psychological and psychiatric to drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation. This is too vague to pass muster, and we cannot interpret it more narrowly in light of other probation conditions, the probation report, or the trial court’s commentary. Without meaningful guidance from the record, the open-ended program condition cannot be saved by permitting the probation department to provide the necessary specificity.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902
Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358