Error and/or relief
We modify the order of probation to eliminate the provision that the defendant pay the costs of mental health treatment as a condition of probation and otherwise affirm the judgment.
First Holding:
We review such constitutional challenges to conditions of probation de novo.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902
Second Holding:
A court may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. In imposing such conditions, a court may require a defendant to complete a residential treatment program. A probation officer, however, may only oversee and enforce the trial court’s orders. A probation officer may not create conditions not expressly authorized by the court.
Authority:
People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1350
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358
Third Holding:
The defendant raises an argument for the first time in the reply brief. The issue is forfeited for not raising it earlier.
Authority:
People v. Hart (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1106
Fourth Holding:
A trial court may order a defendant who is granted probation to pay the reasonable associated costs. To do so, the court must make an inquiry and determination regarding the defendant’s ability to pay, and issue a separate order for the payment of such costs.
But the payment of such costs cannot be made a condition of probation. The record before us does not show the court inquired into the defendant’s ability to pay before including the provision that she pay these costs, or that it issued a separate order for payment of these costs. Accordingly, condition 7 must be modified to eliminate the requirement that the defenrant pay the costs of treatment associated with this condition.
Authority:
People v. Hall (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 889, 892
Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322
People v. Hart (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 902, 907