Error and/or relief:
There is not sufficient nexus with the current offense or with future criminality to justify the imposition of the gang conditions of probation. In addition, payment for counseling cannot be ordered as a condition of probation. We direct the trial court to strike the gang conditions and to modify the counseling provision to clarify that payment of costs is not a condition of probation.
First Holding:
When a trial court grants probation, section 1203.1(j) states that the court may impose and require any or all of the terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions specified in that section, and other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.
Accordingly, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.
Authority:
PEN 1203.1(j)
People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120
Second Holding:
There are limits to the conditions a court may impose. Under Lent, a condition of probation will be invalid if it:
(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted,
(2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and
(3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.
This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.
Authority:
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
Third Holding:
We review the trial court’s decision to impose a given probation condition for an abuse of discretion, considering the facts of the underlying offense and the defendant’s background. (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379; People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579.) We review constitutional challenges to specific conditions of probation—including assertions that a condition improperly delegates the trial court’s authority—de novo.
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902
Fourth Holding:
The defendant complains that the court should not have reviewed his juvenile record, as juvenile proceedings are confidential.
In general, juvenile court records are confidential. Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 governs the release of juvenile court records. It enumerates a list of persons who may inspect a juvenile case file without a court order, which includes, among others, court personnel, the district attorney, a city attorney, or city prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal or juvenile cases under state law, attorneys for the parties, judges, referees, other hearing officers, probation officers, and law enforcement officers who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor, and any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge or the juvenile court upon filing a petition.
Authority:
WIC 827
City of Eureka v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 755, 761
Fifth Holding:
Welfare and Institutions Code section 828(a)(2) states that a court shall consider any information relating to the taking of a minor into custody, if the information is not contained in a record that has been sealed, for purposes of determining whether adjudications of commission of crimes as a juvenile warrant a finding that there are circumstances in aggravation pursuant to Section 1170 of the Penal Code or to deny probation.
The defendant’s juvenile record has not been sealed. Thus, court personnel, the prosecutor, and the probation department were permitted to inspect the records without court order. Moreover, the court was permitted to consider information related to the taking of Reeves into custody for the purpose of determining whether to grant or deny probation.
Authority:
WIC(a)(2)
Sixth Holding:
Probation conditions need not relate directly to the underlying conviction, and may, instead, be reasonably related to future criminality. But here we cannot conclude that the gang conditions are reasonably related to future criminality. As discussed, even if appropriately considered, the defendant’s juvenile record is 10 years old, and in the intervening 10 years, there is no indication that the defendant has engaged in any criminal activity related to gangs.
Authority:
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
Seventh Holding:
Courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Yet Lent’s requirement that a probation condition must be reasonably related to future criminality contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, not every probation condition bearing a remote, attenuated, tangential, or diaphanous connection to future criminal conduct can be considered reasonable.
Courts are not authorized to impose “conditions to shield probationers from exposure to people and circumstances that are less than ideal but are nonetheless unrelated to defendant’s current or prior offenses or any factor suggesting a risk of future criminal conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the gang conditions are not reasonable under Lent and must be stricken.
Authority:
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122
People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574, 577
Eighth Holding:
The trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation.
Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to modify the condition with this clarification.
Authority:
Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321
Ninth Holding:
The defendant’s remaining arguments about the propriety of the order directing that all costs are to be borne by the defendant are forfeited for lack of objection at the time they were ordered.
Authority:
People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858–859 [defendant waived arguments regarding ability to pay probation costs by failing to raise them in the trial court]