Category Archives: Probation Parole PRCS

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001067

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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]

Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001066

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The four-year term of probation is stricken and modified to reflect the agreed-upon three-year term.

Holding:

The defendant entered into a plea bargain in which he would be granted probation for a period of three years. The probation officer’s report spelled out recommended terms and conditions of probation, but recommended that probation be for four years. The court sentenced the defendant to a term in state prison, suspended execution of sentence, and placed the defendant on probation for four years. Neither the court nor any party present noted, explained, or challenged on the record the imposition of the four-year probationary term.

The Attorney General agrees that the court erroneously violated the terms of the plea agreement by placing the defendant on probation for a period longer than the agreed-upon three years and further agrees that the defendant’s challenge to the court’s violation of the plea agreement is not waived, and thus does not address the defendant’s alterative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The usual remedies for violation of a plea bargain are to allow defendant to withdraw the plea and go to trial on the original charges, or to specifically enforce the plea bargain. Specific enforcement is appropriate when it will implement the reasonable expectations of the parties without binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances. The four-year term of probation is stricken and modified to reflect the agreed-upon three-year term.

Authority:

People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860–861

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001044

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a term of 16 months in jail as a condition of probation. The matter must be remanded for resentencing, and for the court to determine the issue of the amount of the restitution fine in light of Kopp.

First Holding:

The trial court imposed a jail term of 16 months as a condition of probation because he had missed his appointment with his probation officer and failed to appear at the sentencing hearing. However, section 19.2 provides that, except in situations not here relevant, in no case shall any person sentenced to confinement in a county or city jail, as a condition of probation upon conviction of either a felony or a misdemeanor, be committed for a period in excess of one year.

Authority:

PEN 19.2

Second Holding:

Although Bailey held that the one-year limit may be waived by the defendant, Bailey is distinguishable because the defendant Bailey entered a knowing and intelligent waiver. There is no evidence here that the defendant was informed of the 12-month limit under section 19.2, and his agreement to the longer term was therefore not a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 828, 831

People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294, 308 [regarding waiver of credit for time served, the gravamen of whether such a waiver is knowing and intelligent is whether the defendant understood he was relinquishing or giving up custody credits to which he was otherwise entitled under section 2900.5]

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166 [criminal defendant’s waiver of right to jury trial may not be accepted by the court unless it is knowing and intelligent, that is, made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it]

Third Holding:

On remand, the defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive under the federal and state constitutions. As to ancillary costs, if requested by the defendat, the trial court shall consider his inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1), allowing the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30-31

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001038

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was a violation of separation of powers for the trial court to delegate authority to the probation department the decision of which counseling or rehabilitation program deemed appropriate by the probation officer. The trial court is directed to modify the treatment condition by either specifically identifying the type of treatment program(s) or striking the condition altogether.

First Holding:

The California Constitution states that the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Trial courts broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

Calif. Const., art. III, sec. 3

PEN 1203.1

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26

Second Holding:

But no statutory provision sanctions a delegation of unlimited discretion to a probation officer to implement or interpret probationary terms. These determinations are essentially judicial functions. 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 defendant’s treatment condition delegates unlimited discretion to his probation officer to determine and implement the nature and amount of treatment that the defendant may be required to complete, including whether a program is residential or outpatient. Because the treatment condition does not identify the type of counseling or treatment that he is required to complete, the trial court’s imposition of the condition is an improper delegation of authority.

Authority:

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 358

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Amelioration, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001031

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A sentence of more than 72 years to life plus two life terms imposed in 1995 on a 16-year-old minor is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).

If the court resentences, the court must then consider whether to transfer the case back to juvenile court for a transfer hearing to determine whether the matter should be retained under juvenile court jurisdiction or transferred back to adult court, applying Proposition 57.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1) allows juvenile offenders to petition for recall and resentencing after 15 years of incarceration if they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(1)

Second Holding:

A sentence of 72 years eight months to life, plus two life sentences is the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence, and therefore, the defendant is eligible for resentencing under equal protection principles. As the two life sentences carry a minimum of seven years on each, the effective sentence in this matter is more than 86 years to life. Under that sentence, the defendant would not be released before he reached 102 years of age.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1056

People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 50, 68 [sentence of 84 years to life was the equivalent of LWOP and constituted cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 273 [under sec. 3046, where two indeterminate sentences run consecutively, a defendant must serve the full minimum term of each before becoming eligible for parole]

Third Holding:

A petition under section 1170(d)(1) must include a statement describing the defendant’s remorse, work toward rehabilitation, and a statement that one of four qualifying circumstances is true.

The four qualifying circumstances under section 1170(d)(2), are:

(A) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law.

(B) The defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall.

(C) The defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant.

(D) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing themselves of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if those programs have been available at their classification level and facility, using self-study for self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(2)

Fourth Holding:

Recall and resentencing entitles eligible defendants to the benefits of retroactive ameliorative changes to the law, such as Proposition 57, which eliminated the prosecution’s right to file charges for eligible crimes against a minor directly in adult court without a fitness or transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 449

People v. Montes (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 35, 48-49 [ordering superior court to transfer case to juvenile court to hold hearing under Prop. 57 where court had recalled LWOP sentence under sec. 1170(d)(1) for a defendant who had committed crimes when he was 17 years old]

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304, 309 [Proposition 57 constituted an ameliorative change to the criminal law, and therefore, it applies retroactively to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted.]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162 [once a superior court recalls a sentence, it becomes nonfinal, and Proposition 57 applies retroactively]

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 971, 996 [because sentence was vacated under (what is now section 1172.6), defendant’s sentence became nonfinal for purposes of Proposition 57]

Fifth Holding:

In Graham, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of an LWOP sentence for a juvenile offender who did not commit a homicide.

In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. In sentencing a juvenile homicide offender the trial court must have the ability to impose a sentence less than LWOP after taking into account youth-related factors and whether the offender may be rehabilitated.

Tha California Supreme Court in Caballero applied the holding in Graham to a 110 years-to-life sentence, describing the sentence as a term-of-years sentence that amounts to the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence.

Authority:

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 82

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465, 477

People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267-268

Sixth Holding:

In Contreras, the California Supreme Court considered whether a lengthy term-of-years sentence, though not clearly exceeding a juvenile offender’s natural lifespan, may nonetheless impinge on the same substantive concerns that make the imposition of LWOP on juvenile nonhomicide offenders impermissible under the Eighth Amendment.

The Contreras court concluded that sentences of 50 years or more to life for juvenile nonhomicide offenders were the functional equivalent of LWOP sentences for purposes of the Eighth Amendment because, as contemplated by Graham:

(1) confinement with no possibility of release until age 66 or age 74 seems unlikely to allow for reintegration into society;

(2) a juvenile offender who has no chance to leave prison for 50 years has little incentive to become a responsible individual;

(3) a 50-years-to-life sentence, though less harsh than LWOP, is still an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile, who will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender;

(4) Graham’s observation that juveniles have limited ability to consider consequences when making decisions applies to a sentence of 50 years to life just as it does to a sentence of LWOP; and

(5) a judgment that a juvenile offender will be incorrigible for the next 50 years is no less questionable than a judgment that the juvenile offender will be incorrigible forever.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 356, 364

Seventh Holding:

By leaving section 1170(d)(1) in place after enacting section 3051 (which sets up a scheme of parole eligibility consideration for juvenile and young offenders), the Legislature has signaled its preference for section 1170(d)(1) to persist rather than to be stricken, thereby ensuring section 1170(d)(1) provides relief in addition to the relief provided by section 3051.

Authority:

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1063

Discretion, Duty of the court, Pleading, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001023

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s motion filed under Franklin and Penal Code section 1203.01 for a hearing to set forth youth-related evidence for consideration at future parole hearings.

We conclude that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion absent evidence that the defendant had past opportunities to present youth-related evidence and absent information regarding the substance of the evidence that the defendant intended to present.

We decline to issue an order that the trial court grant the request for a Franklin hearing. We simply direct the court to hold a proper hearing on the motion to determine whether a Franklin hearing is warranted.

First Holding:

Section 3051(a)(1) provides for a youth offender parole hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger at the time of his or her controlling offense.

Section 4801(c) provides that, when a prisoner committed his or her controlling offense, as defined in section 3051(a), when he or she was 25 years of age or younger, the board, in reviewing a prisoner’s suitability for parole pursuant to section 3041.5, shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 4801(c)

Second Holding:

In Franklin, the Supreme Court held a defendant who did not have an opportunity to make a record of mitigating youth-related factors relevant to a later youth offender parole hearing should have an opportunity to make a record on remand.

The court explained that sections 3051 and 4801 contemplate that information regarding the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at a youth offender parole hearing to facilitate the Board’s consideration. Assembling such statements about the individual before the crime is typically a task more easily done at or near the time of the juvenile’s offense rather than decades later when memories have faded, records may have been lost or destroyed, or family or community members may have relocated or passed away.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to determine whether the defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and if not, to allow the defendant to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

In Cook, the Supreme Court held that a juvenile offender with a final judgment could move for a postjudgment proceeding under section 1203.01, to present evidence of youth-related factors. The Cook court reasoned that recognizing the court’s authority under section 1203.01 to gather youth offender evidence effectuates sections 3051 and 4801.

For inmates who seek to preserve evidence following a final judgment, the proper avenue 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 that establishes the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicates when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred.

Consistent with Franklin and the court’s inherent authority, the offender shall have the opportunity to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Neither the passage of significant time, nor the fact that the defendant has had prior parole hearings is a bar to the court granting a Franklin hearing. The Legislature intended that the benefits of youth offender parole hearings be available even to those prisoners with decades-old convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 453, 458-459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 751

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of a Franklin proceeding for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion we are required to 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:

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

Fifth Holding:

The defendant’s motion contained sufficient information. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion bust describe with precision the vidence the offender seeks to introduce. The court’s commentary in Cook about what a motion should include is not the same as creating mandatory pleading requirements.

Courts have found there are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001013

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation after the period of probation had expired, because it no longer had jurisdiction once the probation period expired.

First Holding:

A trial court, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years.

Revocation is a two-step process. First, when presented with probable cause of a violation, a court may summarily revoke supervision and issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

Second, the defendant is entitled to a formal hearing at which the prosecution must prove the violation and a disposition may be made. If the violation is found true, the court may, among other options, terminate supervision and order incarceration in jail, or it may reinstate supervision and modify the conditions, such as by imposing a period of jail incarceration.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 966

Second Holding:

The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the period of supervision. However, while the trial court has the power to extend the probationary term, tolling at the summary revocation stage does not automatically extend the probationary period but rather preserves the court’s jurisdiction to proceed to the second step, a formal hearing to decide whether there has been a violation during the probation period, after the probation period has expired.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(a)

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 504)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968

Third Holding:

The defendant was placed on two years probation. The parties disagree on whether probation expired in April or had been extended to a late August date. Although a minute order of a hearing held on a date in late August stated that it was revoked on a specific date a few weeks before the hearing, the court never stated that probation was revoked at a hearing.

A trial court’s oral pronouncements control over a subsequently entered minute order. Moreover, the minutes from that earlier hearing do not say probation was revoked. There was no reporter at that earlier hearing. Thus, the record does not support the assertion that probation was revoked at that early August hearing.

Instead, the record does reflect that the court purported to revoke probation two months later, in October. But whether probation was set to expire in April (as the defendant claimed) or in August (as the prosecution claimed), both dates had passed before the October hearing.

As the probation expiration date had passed (whether in April or August), the court no longer had jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant had violated probation.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 907, 918–919

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968


(Gary note: I recognize that this summary is inartfully worded, a product of my attempt to anonymize the participants. During the defendant’s probation, it was revoked and reinstated a number of times. At some point–whether April or August–probation expired during a period when there was no order revoking probation, summary or otherwise. Had the court timely summarily revoked probation before its term expired, it would have had jurisdiction over the case even after the term expired. By not putting the probation into a “revocation” mode, probation simply terminated when the expiration date arrived. At that point, the court lost jurisdiction to conduct revocation proceedings.)

Due process, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000992

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation. But in light of the materially inaccurate information that appears to have influenced the defendant’s sentence, we cannot conclude that the superior court exercised informed discretion in imposing his sentence. Remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A probation violation is provable by a preponderance of the evidence. We review factual findings in this respect for substantial evidence. Under that standard, our review is limited to the determination of whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court’s decision. In conducting this inquiry, we give full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 441

People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318

People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 198

Second Holding:

There may be situations in which a prisoner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, but only where he shows that: (1) material false information was (2) relied upon by the sentencing judge, and (3) the defendant had no opportunity at the time of sentencing to correct such false information. The probation officer’s report stated that the defendant was found in violation of probation for, among other things, using illicit drugs. In fact, he was not found to have used drugs, and he was not found in violation for using drugs.

The record here reflects that the court relied on that materially false information. When defense counsel attempted to bring it to the court’s attention that the statement was untrue, the court gave no feedback or acknowledgement and simply proceeded with sentencing, in contrast to an earlier correction on a different misunderstanding brought to the court’s attention by the prosecutor, whom the court thanked for bringing the correction to the court’s attention.

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. On this record, which appears to show that the sentencing court believed that the drug-use allegations had been proven, we cannot be confident that the court exercised informed discretion.

Authority:

In re Beal (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 94, 99–100

People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

Third Holding:

A court’s alleged reliance on inaccurate information that appears to have contributed to the defendant’s sentence implicates the federal constitutional guarantee of due process. We evaluate such claims under the standard set forth in Chapman. This stricter standard of review requires reversal unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 251

Fourth Holding:

In revoking and terminating probation, trial court is entitled to consider defendant’s performance on probation from the time it was originally granted until it was reinstated for the final time.

Authority:

People v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 145, 151

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

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

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

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

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Appellate Principles, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000941

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor challenges several conditions of probation. We modify two of them.

First Holding:

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate probation conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. The juvenile court’s discretion, while broad, is not unlimited.

A probation condition is 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.

In order to invalidate a condition of probation under this Lent test, all three factors must be found to be present. A condition of probation that would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision of the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749, 754

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

Second Holding:

We review a juvenile court’s imposition of a probation condition for an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Daniel R. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1, 6

Third Holding:

Hearsay can at least sometimes be considered at dispositional hearings, and courts may base probation conditions upon information in probation reports.

Authority:

In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 243–244

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

Fourth Holding:

Probation conditions are to be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable reader. We modify the probation condition that the minor not be around anyone known to him to be in possession of any dangerous or deadly weapons by inserting “known to him to be unlawfully in possession of the same.”

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

(Gary note: Olguin supports the first sentence of that summary of the holding. The court did not cite any specific authority in the paragraphs in which it modified the language of that condition itself. However, In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889, authorizes an appellate court to modify conditions of probation to render them constitutional.)

Fifth 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.

People have a constitutional right to self-defense. The condition that “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone” must be tailored to, “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone, except for acts of lawful self-defense.”

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 1

In re Carlos C. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 997, 1002, 1004

People v. McDonnell (1917) 32 Cal.App. 694, 704

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000907

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court is directed to prepare and send a certified copy of an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, noting that the defendant’s [more than 500] days of excess presentence custody credit are to be applied to his parole period.

First Holding:

Any excess presentence custody credits that a defendant accrues must be applied to his parole period.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5(a) and (c)

People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, 405

Second Holding:

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Board of Parole Hearings determine when a defendant is discharged from parole, and any excess credits are taken into account. In an abundance of caution, we will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to note that the defendant’s excess credits shall be applied to his parole period.

Authority:

PEN 3000(b)

PEN 3001

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, secs. 2515, 2345, 2535–2537

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000901

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A condition of probation must be modified, as it is not sufficiently clear on what exact conduct is proscribed.

First Holding:

Probation condition number 48 provides: “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not frequent any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.” The defendant argues the terms frequent and areas known for gang-related activity are unconstitutionally vague.

Authority:

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [probation condition that the minor not frequent any areas of gang related activity was objectionable because the verb ‘frequent’ would be especially challenging to understand; ‘frequent’ should be replaced with “visit”]

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913–914 [probation condition prohibiting minor from being in areas known for gang-related activity was impermissibly vague in that it does not provide notice of what areas the minor may not frequent or what types of activities he must shun]

Second Holding:

Under the void for vagueness doctrine, based on the due process concept of fair warning, an order must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated. The doctrine invalidates a condition of probation so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910

Third Holding:

In Victor L., we considered a similar probation condition that required the minor to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. We found the condition as written, without further specificity, was not sufficiently clear to put the minor on notice of the prohibited conduct.

However, we declined to remand the matter to the trial court to reform the probation condition, observing, that to require the judge in each probation order to specify exactly which areas are forbidden to the individual gang member would impose an undue burden on the judiciary.

Instead, we elected to modify the condition of probation to provide for the probation officer to notify the minor of the areas he must avoid, as this approach was implied in law in order to avoid a claim of unconstitutional vagueness. We modified the probation term to read in relevant part, “The Minor shall not be in areas known by Minor for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity).

Similarly here, we will modify the condition to read: “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not visit any area where gang members are known by you to congregate or any area known by you for gang-related activity (or as designated by your probation officer), unless you have prior authorization from your probation officer.”

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913, 916-918, 931-932

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067