Error and/or relief
The condition that the defendant participate in and complete, at his expense, any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by his probation officer is unconstitutional. The sentencing memorandum must be amended to reflect the court’s waiver of all fines and fees.
First Holding:
By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3), judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.
The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. Here, defendant’s condition does not specify the kind of program defendant might be required to complete; rather, it allows defendant’s probation officer to determine whether and in what type of program defendant could be ordered to participate. Thus, the probation condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer.
Authority:
Cal. Const. art. III sec. 3
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359
Second Holding:
Where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903
People v. Cruz (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310 [Invalidating probation condition that gave the probation officer sole discretion to decide whether the defendant should be subject to global positioning system monitoring]
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided that the defendant shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer]
[CONTRA] People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240-1241 [Upholding probation condition which directed defendant to follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe]
[CONTRA:] People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program]
Third Holding:
The sentencing memorandum should be modified to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement that all applicable fines and fees be waived. We shall direct the court to correct the sentencing memorandum.
Authority:
People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340 [The oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the clerical recording of the judgment]
People v. Contreras (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1300, fn. 3 [The reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors]
