Category Archives: Probation Parole PRCS

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000244

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing a probation condition that required the defendant to submit to searches of her computers, recordable media, and electronic devices. The electronic search condition is not reasonably related to criminality. Because we conclude the electronic search condition is unreasonable under the Lent test, we do not consider whether it is unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction in part and remand with instructions to strike the electronic search condition and consider whether a more narrowly tailored or alternative condition would be reasonable.

First Holding:

In Lent, the Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether a probation condition is reasonable and, therefore, statutorily valid. Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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

Second Holding:

A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. Specifically, we review a probation condition for an indication that the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000238

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We strike the domestic violence probation fee. The defendant was sentenced to prison.

Holding:

The domestic violation probation fee is imposed only when a defendant is granted probation. It is not applicable when the defendant is sentenced to prison. the unauthorized fee must be stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1203.97(a)(5)

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1520

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000228

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant pleaded no contest to felony reckless evasion of a peace officer in a motor vehicle and misdemeanor driving with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. The trial court granted probation for a period of three years. More than two years later, the defendant violated his probation, and the court imposed a felony prison term. The court lacked authority to impose a felony sentence because his violation of probation occurred after the first two years of the probationary term. We reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Holding:

AB 1950 amended Penal Code sections 1203a and 1203.1 to restrict the length of most probation terms. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, secs. 1, 2.) Effective January 1, 2021, misdemeanor probation terms are generally limited to one year and felony probation terms are generally limited to two years (sec.1203.1(a)). Exempt from these limits are offenses that ‘include specific probation lengths within their provisions.

Authority:

PEN 1203a

PEN 1203.1

AB 1950

People v. Saxton (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 428, 431

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000203

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying his expungement request under Penal Code section 1203.4 and in failing to consider his request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b). Because the court did not address his request under section 17(b), on remand it must do so.

First Holding:

An order denying relief under section 1203.4 is appealable.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 110, 114

Second Holding:

Section 1203.4 provides in pertinent part that a defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation is entitled as a matter of right to have the plea or verdict changed to not guilty, to have the proceedings expunged from the record, and to have the accusations dismissed. If the petitioner meets the criteria for relief under section 1203.4, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

People v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, 249-250

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991

People v. Lewis (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 294, 297-298

Third Holding:

As of 2023, section 1203.4 provides that a petition for relief under this section shall not be denied due to an unfulfilled order of restitution, and an unfulfilled order of restitution shall not be grounds for finding that a defendant did not fulfill the condition of probation for the entire period of probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4(c)(3)(A) & (B)

Fourth Holding:

When a crime is punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor it is commonly referred to as a “wobbler,” and the trial court may reduce the offense to a misdemeanor at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor. In exercising its discretion, the court considers several factors, including “ ‘the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s appreciation of and attitude toward the offense, or his traits of character as evidenced by his behavior and demeanor at the trial.

Authority:

PEN 17(b)(3)

People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877,

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968,

People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 790-791

Fifth Holding:

Grand theft by embezzlement of property valued at more than $950, the offense for which the defendant was convicted, is a wobbler. The trial court should have addressed the defendant’s request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor.

Authority:

People v. Selivanov (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 726, 75

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000199

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to state prison after pleading no contest to robbery and injury a girlfriend. The trial court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee. We strike the fee.

Holding:

A domestic violence fee is only authorized when a defendant is granted probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000194

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant appeals the trial court’s written order vacating its prior order appointing counsel and scheduling a Franklin hearing to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youthful offender parole hearing. Defendant asks this court to remand the matter so he may present additional argument to the trial court. The People do not oppose giving defendant an opportunity to establish his eligibility for a Franklin hearing. We accept the People’s concession and will reverse and remand the matter.

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2020, defendants who committed crimes when they were 25 years old or younger are generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing after specified periods, depending on their sentence. However, the statute excludes those defendants who, like defendant here, were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years old.

[GARY NOTE: A defendant who is eligible for future consideration of parole as a youthful offender may make a record in the superior court to preserve facts that may be persuasive in a future hearing on whether to grant parole.]

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

Although Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge to section 3051 by an offender sentenced to LWOP for special circumstance murder, it did not foreclose other as-applied challenges to the statute based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 484-495 [the defendant successfully raised an as-applied challenge to section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder under section 190.2(d)]

Third Holding:

There are cases with possibly similar crimes by possibly equally culpable offenders who would now be eligible for parole while the defendant is not. Although these authorities do not conclusively establish any violation of defendant’s right to equal protection, they do allow for the possibility that he might be able to develop such an argument under Harden.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831

People v. Mulqueen (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 532

People v. Fortman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 45

Fourth Holding:

Some states have constitutions that prohibit imposing an LWOP sentence on youthful offenders. While these authorities do not conclusively establish that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution, they allow for the possibility that defendant might be able to develop such an argument.

Authority:

Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024) 493 Mass. 216, 234-235

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458

Abstracts and Minutes, Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000176

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $150 restitution fine and the parole revocation fine imposed on count three are unauthorized and must be vacated or stayed. The fine had been imposed on a count that was stayed under Penal Code section 654. Aside from that problem, a separate parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on a misdemeanor offense. Also, the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it incorrectly states that he has a prior strike and was sentenced under Penal Code section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

First Holding:

When a court imposes multiple punishments in violation of section 654, it acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence that can be challenged for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1234

Second Holding:

Defendant is not subject to parole separately for the misdemeanor and is thus not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine on it.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 547

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously states that he has a prior strike and that he was sentenced under section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12. There is no indication in the record defendant has sustained a prior strike conviction. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that he does not have a strike prior, and he was not sentenced pursuant to section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for the obvious proposition that the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected. I have listed below some of many cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Probation Parole PRCS, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000153

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After petitioner admitted to parole violations, the superior court revoked petitioner’s parole and remanded him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) pursuant to section 3000.08(h). He should not have been remanded to state prison under section 3000.08(h), but instead confined to county jail for no more than 180 days pursuant to section 3000.08(f) and (g)

First Holding:

For all inmates released from prison on parole on or after July 1, 2020, notwithstanding any other law, any inmate sentenced to a life term shall be released on parole for a period of three years. Therefore, it is section 3000.01 and not section 3000.1 that applies to convicted murderers who, like petitioner, are paroled after July 1, 2020. Because section 3000.1 does not apply to petitioner, he is not subject to section 3000.08(h), remanding him to the custody of CDCR. The trial court is directed to vacate its order remanding petitioner to the custody of the CDCR and hold further proceedings to determine what penalties to impose for petitioner’s parole violation, as provided by section 3000.08(f) and (g

Authority:

PEN 3000.01(b)(2) [subject to two exceptions not relevant here, under subdivision (d)]

Second Holding:

By using the phrase “notwithstanding any other law,” the Legislature signaled its intent for the later-enacted statute–section 3000.01–to preempt the conflicting, preexisting statute in section 3000.1

Authority:

APeople v. Reed (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 43, 53

Probation Parole PRCS

Case: 000138

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Probation Condition 13 is invalid under Lent and Ricardo P. In accord with Ricardo P., we will vacate Probation Condition 13 and remand for consideration of whether a more narrowly tailored electronic search condition may be devised and is justified on this record.

First Holding:

In Lent, the Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether a probation condition is reasonable and, therefore, statutorily valid. Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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. The third prong of the Lent test requires a narrow tailoring evaluation to determine whether the burden an electronic search condition imposes on the probationer’s privacy is reasonably proportionate to the risk of future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122-1123

Second Holding:

Under Lent, the third prong reasonableness determination as explained and applied in Ricardo P. requires a case-by-case, record-specific balancing of factors. The third prong requires more than just an abstract or hypothetical relationship between the probation condition and preventing future criminality. It is insufficient to say, categorically, that electronic surveillance improves effective probation supervision. A probation condition cannot be justified solely on the basis that it enhances the effective supervision of the probationer without regard for the burden it places on the probationer.

Authority:

People v. Bryant (2021) 11 Cal.5th 976, 983, 984

Third Holding:

There must be information in the record establishing a connection between the search condition and the probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history—an actual connection apparent in the evidence, not one that is just abstract or hypothetical. Even though a direct nexus between the search condition and underlying offense is not always required, there still must be information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality.

Authority:

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 165-166E

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000128

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000113

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition of probation that prohibits the defendant from “frequenting] any area where gang members are known by him/her to congregate, or areas known by him/her for gang related activity” is overbroad and can be more narrowly tailored by allowing the defendant’s probation officer to specify the areas involving gang-related activity. Accordingly, we modify the condition of probation to read that the defendant “shall not associate with any person known to him/her as a gang member and shall not frequent any areas specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity, subject to reasonable exceptions to accommodate family, work, and educational needs as determined by his probation officer.”

First Holding:

The court’s discretion of the court to impose conditions of probation is not boundless. The authority is wholly statutory, and the statute furnishes and limits the measure of authority which the court may exercise. A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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. Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Second Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Third Holding:

As to the third prong of Lent, courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. But the third prong “contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [relying on information in probation report for gang-related condition]

Fourth Holding:

Probation is a privilege and not a right, and adult probationers, in preference to incarceration, validly may consent to limitations upon their constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384

Fifth Holding:

A probation condition that infringes a constitutional right is permissible if necessary to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety. However, a probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1281

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62-63

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153

Sixth Holding:

In Victor L., the defendant challenged for overbreadth and vagueness a condition of probation ordering him to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. The court distinguished between probation restrictions encompassing areas known for gang related crimes (which other courts had upheld against constitutional challenges) from restrictions involving gang-related activity. Noting the word ‘activity’ is one of surpassing breadth that could banish the defendant from the area in which he lived, worked, or went to school, Victor L. determined that an individualized list of stay away areas, together with any exceptions necessary to reasonably accommodate the defendant’s legitimate work and educational needs was required. Victor L. reasoned a probation officer, rather than the trial court, was in a better position to identify the forbidden areas for each defendant, using either geographic or activity-based limits. Victor L. modified the condition to prohibit the defendant’s presence in areas known by him for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity). Other courts have imposed similar gang-area restrictions.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913-918, 931-932

People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 754-760 [affirming condition that stated that the defendant was not to visit or remain in any specific location which he knows to be or which the probation officer informs him to be an area of criminal street gang-related activity]

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [It would be altogether preferable to name the actual geographic area that would be prohibited to the minor and then to except from that certain kinds of travel, that is, to school or to work]