Tag Archives: Probation Parole PRCS

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000557

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in placing the defendant on probation for a period of five years, because the maximum allowed in this case is three years. The matter is remanded for resentencing. There are also errors in the abstract of judgment that should be corrected in keeping with the resentencing.

First Holding:

Under the Penal Code, in granting probation, a trial court generally may suspend imposition or execution of sentence “for a period of time not exceeding two years. However, this two-year limit does not apply where an offense includes specific probation lengths within its provisions. Nevertheless, for such offenses, probation may continue for a period of time not exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence.

Under Vehicle Code section 23600, under which violations of section 23152 are punishable, a period of probation not less than three nor more than five years may be imposed. But the defendant faced a maximum possible term of imprisonment of only three years. Accordingly, under section 1203.1(l)(1), the maximum authorized term of probation was three years, as the People concede.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

Second Holding:

An unauthorized sentence is subject to correction at any time without objection.

Authority:

People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 127, fn. 22

Third Holding:

The minute order contains errors, including a lab fee that was not ordered and transposing the fines to $2905 rather than the $2095 that was actually ordered by the court. Though because we are remanding for resentencing and thus the issue is moot, we point out that the minute order should accurately reflect fines, fees, and assessments pronounced by the trial court.. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order. In addition, the trial court retains the authority to correct clerical errors.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388

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

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS

Case 000545

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petitioner’s motion to dismissal under section 1203.4 upon complete of probation was mandatory, and should have been granted.

First Holding:

Once a defendant has fulfilled all the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation (or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation), and are not then serving a sentence for an offense, on probation for an offense, or charged with the commission of an offense, section 1203.4 provides that a defendant must be permitted to withdraw the plea of guilty and have the court dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and be released from all penalties and disabilities except as provided in Vehicle Code section 13555.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

Second Holding:

If the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, dismissal is mandatory. If the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation or been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, the court may still grant relief in its discretion in the interests of justice. Here, the defendant had fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, was not not then serving a sentence for an offense, on probation for an offense, or charged with the commission of an offense. It was error to deny the petition.

Authority:

People v. Daffeh (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 790, 796

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

Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000544

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the court set the probation term at three years instead of the agreed-on two years, the court erred in not complying with the plea bargain without permitting the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement.

First Holding:

The standard for evaluating claims that counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance is set forth in Strickland. This standard provides that to secure reversal upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, an appellant must establish (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.

On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–694

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003

People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009

Second Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Unless an appellant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. Further, failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1257

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746

People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90

Third Holding:

The defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object when the trial court placed on a three-year grant of probation instead of the two-year probation term contemplated by the plea agreement. However, the order of probation is an unauthorized sentence, on which basis we reverse, rendering moot the question of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Legislature enacted AB 1950, effective January 1, 2021, which significantly changed the law governing probation, including section 1203.1. Under the amended version of section 1203.1, the maximum term of probation a trial court may impose for most felony offenses is a period of time not exceeding two years. Whereas previous law had authorized courts to grant a period of probation not exceeding the maximum term for which the person could be imprisoned, AB 1950 instead authorizes a court to impose a term of probation not longer than 2 years, except as otherwise specified. As a general matter, the amendments of AB 1950 apply retroactively to the benefit of a person whose judgment is not yet final on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Arreguin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 787, 793

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 207

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 963 [modifying term of probation to conform with new law while preserving remainder of plea agreement]

Fourth Holding:

Generally, a court may not accept an unauthorized plea. Where a trial court is asked to approve an illegal plea bargain—illegal because it violates a policy condition established by the Legislature or the people through the initiative process—the proper course of action for the court is clear. It should decline to act in excess of its authority and should refuse to approve an arrangement under which it is called upon to do so. Faced with an unlawful plea bargain, a trial court should withhold approval of the bargain.

Thus, if a court has approved a plea bargain containing an illegal term, ordinarily, the recourse for a court would not be to reform the bargain to make it legal; it would be to withdraw its prior approval of the agreement. Whether by withdrawal of its prior approval or the granting of a withdrawal/rescission request by one or both of the parties, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante. The parties may then enter into a new plea agreement, which will be subject to the trial court’s approval, or they may proceed to trial on the reinstated charges.

Authority:

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 974

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757 [When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered]

People v. Barton (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159

[Gary Note:

Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?” On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.” The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.

But Wait! There’s More!

On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court decided People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. It was an appeal directly from the original sentencing under section 1170, and did not arise out of a ruling on the application of any other ameliorative statutes. The question was “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?”

The court concluded that it does apply (section 1170 as amended by SB 567), but it remanded with the Stamps remedy–that if the defendant opts to claim the benefits of section 1170 and the resulting sentence is something the DA or the court are not happy with, the plea will be set aside and the parties restored to their pre-plea bargain status.

But it contained a very important footnote:

“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 (Stats. 2024, ch. 964, § 2) sets forth procedures governing a “ ‘postconviction proceeding,’ ” which the statute defines as “a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.” (§ 1171, subd. (a).) At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

On remand, the Court of Appeal issued its new opinion–this time unpublished–in which it further remanded the case to the trial court for resolution in light of the Supreme Court decision. And in that unpublished opinion, it stated, “We now find that Mitchell’s section 1171 arguments should be resolved first by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this action to that court for further proceedings consistent with Mitchell II [the Supreme Court decision]. On remand, Mitchell may raise her contentions regarding section 1171.”]

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000521

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee, because that only applies to those granted probation, which the defendant was not, as he was sentenced to prison.

First Holding:

The requirement to make a $500 domestic violence payment is not authorized by section 1203.097, because the trial court denied probation. The judgment is modified to strike the $500 domestic violence payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000513

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is improper for a trial court to delegate to a probation officer whether to require a probationer to undergo residential substance abuse treatment.

First Holding:

In resolving whether a clerk’s transcript or the reporter’s transcript controls in the event of a conflict, we do not apply a mechanical rule in favor of the reporter’s transcript but instead consider the circumstances of each particular case to determine which portion of the record because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is entitled to greater credence. F

or reasons we explain below, in this case, we conclude that the clerk’s transcript best reflects the trial court’s intention to delegate to a probation officer whether to require the defendant to attend residential treatment. In this case the clerk’s minutes note that some of the probation conditions are set out in the probation order. Provision number nine of that order provides, “Complete a program of residential treatment and aftercare if directed by the probation officer.” The reporter’s transcript, however, with respect to this condition, states only, “Plead [sic] to any kind of treatment or aftercare if directed by probation.” We must determine which of the two versions reflects the court’s true intention.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599

Second Holding:

As a general rule, courts will attempt to harmonize the record if a conflict exists. Historically, when a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement and the written record could not be resolved, the oral pronouncement was given preference However, the modern rule is that if the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts cannot be reconciled, the part of the record that will prevail is the one that should be given greater credence in the circumstances of the case.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599

People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 880

People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346

Third Holding:

With respect to the type of record at issue here, when evaluating a court’s oral pronouncement of probation conditions, a thorough explanation of the conditions is not necessary if the defendant knows what the proposed conditions are. Therefore, the oral pronouncement may be less detailed than the probation order. In this instance, it is clear that the court summarized the conditions of the probation as outlined in the probation order proposed by the probation officer. We conclude that the court intended to adopt the language proposed, to the extent that it did not modify the language (as it did with some proposed conditions. We therefore conclude that the minute order and the probation order are to be given “greater credence” than the oral pronouncement in determining the applicable probation condition under review.

Authority:

People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346 [recital of probation conditions in court is unnecessary because conditions are spelled out in detail in the probation order]

People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599

Fourth Holding:

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 the Constitution. Trial courts have the authority to determine if a defendant is eligible for probation and if so, which conditions would be appropriate under the circumstances. By ordering probation, a court may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.

Accordingly, a court may require a defendant to complete a residential treatment program, even though it would place a significant burden on a defendant’s liberty interests. A probation officer, on the other hand, has discretion to oversee and enforce the trial court’s orders. The probation officer may not create conditions not expressly authorized by the court.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

PEN 1203

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

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

Fifth Holding:

It is an unconstitutional delegation to the probation officer to decide whether the defendant needed to complete residential treatment, as opposed to an outpatient program. Unlike outpatients, participants in residential programs may be confined to the treatment facility for the duration of the program, separated from family and friends, and unable to maintain a job. Given the significant liberty interests at stake, a court—not a probation officer—must make the decision to require a defendant to attend residential treatment.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 905

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000500

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000459

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to revoke the defendant’s probation after its term expired as a matter of law. He had been placed on five years’ probation, and just before the five years expired, the court found him in violation and ordered his suspended prison sentence executed. During his probation, the law changed, and by operation of law his probation was shortened to three years, which expired long before the events on which the probation revocation was based.

First Holding:

While appellant was serving his five-year term of probation, the Legislature amended the statute governing probation, section 1203.1. The previous version of the statute allowed the trial court to grant probation for a period of time not exceeding the maximum term for which the person could be imprisoned, or not over five years for an offense with a maximum sentence of five years or less. Under the amended version of section 1203.1, the relevant portion of which took effect January 1, 2021, the maximum term of probation a trial court may impose for most felony offenses is a period of time not exceeding two years. Appellant’s offense of conviction is one for which the trial court may now impose a maximum probation term of three years.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 207

People v. Kite (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 986, 994-998

Second Holding:

The new limitations on the maximum term of probation in amended section 1203.1 apply to existing, nonfinal plea agreements while otherwise maintaining the remainder of the bargain. Probation terms exceeding those permitted under amended section 1203.1 effectively end by operation of law on the date of the maximum term now authorized.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 963, 969, 979,

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 218

Third Holding:

Once probation ends, a court’s power is significantly attenuated. Its power to impose a sentence over the defendant ceases entirely. The collateral effect of the retroactive application of amended section 1203.1 is to undo or unravel the orders terminating appellant’s probation and ordering execution of the suspended sentence. Thus, if a probation term is shortened under amended section 1203.1, conduct that would have constituted a probation violation, but is now deemed to have occurred outside this term, may not be the basis for terminating that probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.3(a) [court has jurisdiction to revoke probation during the term of probation]

People v. Chavez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 771, 782

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 220

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000454

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we find that a condition of probation that requires the defendant participate and complete any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by the probation officer was not an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine, it was improper to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant participate at his own expense.

The challenged probation condition should be modified to delete the portion of the condition requiring defendant to be responsible for the payment of the costs/fees of any counseling or rehabilitation/treatment program. The court is directed to issue a separate order for the payment of such costs and fees. Before the court may order defendant to pay any or all costs associated with his probation, it must make an inquiry and determination as to his ability to pay and determine the amount of payment.

First Holding:

A 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. Instead, the court must issue a separate order for the payment of such costs. Moreover, before ordering a defendant to pay costs of probation, the court must make an inquiry and determination of the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount of payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1b(a)

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322

Second Holding:

Though we find there was no improper delegation, the defendant’s claim that the condition of probation is an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine has not been forfeited for lack of objection, because it raises a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172

Third Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. Further, the court has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions. We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

Fourth Holding:

A trial court is governed by the separation of powers doctrine. 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. Although the separation of powers doctrine does not prohibit one branch from taking action that might affect another, the doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

Fifth 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, 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.

Authority:

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

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition directing that a defendant participate in any treatment program when considering another condition requiring a defendant complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow through with treatment as prescribed by the probation officer, passes constitutional muster. This is particularly true where the court’s oral comments reflect that the defendant needs treatment for a substance abuse problem. However, 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, 902-903

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 GPS monitoring.]

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided, “You 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.”]

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238,-1241 [Upholding probation condition that directed defendant to “follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe”]

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.]

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition should be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. Following that precept, we read the challenged provision here not as delegating adjudicatory powers to the probation officer but as indicating the court’s advance approval of an agreement that the probation officer might reach with defendant. If a probation officer does interpret the condition in an arbitrary manner, defendant may then file a petition for modification of his probation condition. Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(b)(1)

PEN 1203.3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 211

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

People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]

People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.]

Appellate Principles, Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000414

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously applied the doctrine of the law of the case to deny the defendant’s section 1170(d) petition in which he sought resentencing under its provisions because 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

First Holding:

In his original appeal from the 2010 conviction the Court of Appeal concluded that 50 years to life was not the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence. The trial court denied his petition under section 1170(d) in 2023 on the basis that, under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court had previously ruled that his sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. However, years after the original appeal was decided, the Supreme Court determined that 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and this although in its subsequent consideration the court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.

Authority:

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442 [The law-of-the-case doctrine binds the trial court as to the law but controls the outcome only if the evidence on rehearing of an issue is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based.]

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 430 [The doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case bar a defendant from raising an issue that was raised and rejected in a prior appeal.]

Third Holding:

The law of the case doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate review of the same issue more than once in a single action. It is well settled, however, that the doctrine may be disregarded where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.

Authority:

Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 67, 87, fn. 6

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 716-717 [Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not apply when there has been a significant change in the law since the factual findings were rendered that warrants reexamination of the issue.]

Fourth Holding:

Here, although defendant raised and this court previously rejected the issue of whether, as a juvenile offender, defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP, the law on the issue has changed significantly and is currently split.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 268 [eligibility for parole pursuant to sec. 3051 mooted any assertion that defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 359 [50 years to life for juvenile offender ineligible for sec. 3051 relief is the functional equivalent of LWOP]People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 624 [103 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 441 [140 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061 [107 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 513, dis. opn. of Feuer, J. [ majority holds 50 years to life is not the functional equivalent of LWOP, but the dissent would hold that it is], review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 999 [44 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540 [50 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Perez (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 [parole eligibility at 47 years of age was by no stretch of the imagination functional or de facto LWOP]

People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1260, review granted Sept. 17, 2025, S292070 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, review granted Nov. 12, 2025, S292860 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Lara (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 484, review granted Dec. 30, 2025, S294095 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000412

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronics search condition is invalid under Lent and must be stricken.

First Holding:

In granting probation, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. The court may impose and require such 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. The trial court’s discretion, although broad, nevertheless is not without limits.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120–1121

Second Holding:

A three-prong test determines whether a probation condition is unreasonable. 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. 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:

The first Lent prong is satisfied because the record does not show a relationship between the defendant’s use of electronic devices and the offending conduct sufficient to justify the search condition. There is no information in the record that he used any kind of electronic device to commit, plan, or facilitate his offenses of molesting a child or dissuading a witness. Nor is there any mention whatsoever of his use of a mobile phone, computer, or social media account in connection with the victim or any other conduct that might be said to relate to the offenses in this case.

Authority:

People v. Castellanos (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 267, 270, 271, 275–276 [defendant had three cell phones in his car at the time of arrest and cell phones are frequently used in drug sales]

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719–720 [defendant met victim through social media]

Fourth Holding:

As for the second Lent prong, it goes without saying that the use of electronic devices is not criminal in and of itself.

Authority:

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 566

Fifth Holding:

The third Lent prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. It requires more than just an abstract or hypothetical relationship between the probation condition and preventing future criminality. Nothing in the testimony at the preliminary hearing, the probation report, or the record of the defendant’s personal history revealed anything about his electronics use that might be connected to his past crimes or potential future criminality. The defendant had no prior history of arrests, convictions, or probation, and his risk of recidivism was assessed as below average. Thus, as in Ricardo P., the burden imposed by the electronics search condition on the defendant’s privacy is substantially disproportionate to the condition’s goal” of deterring future criminality.

Authority:

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

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 663–664

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000406

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The provision in the probation order requiring the defendant to reimburse the county for public defender and probation related services must be stricken.

Holding:

Section 1465.9(a) provides that the balance of any court-imposed costs imposed under former section 987.8, authorizing public defender fees, and former section 1203.1b, authorizing probation services fees, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we will strike the portion of the probation order authorizing these fees.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(a)

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 602-603

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625