People v. Burton

Decision Date09 November 2020
Docket NumberNo. BR 054562,BR 054562
CourtCalifornia Superior Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Julius Dobbs BURTON Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea Keith, Esq., Westlake Village, for Defendant Julius Dobbs Burton Jr.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney; Michelle McGinnis, Supervising Deputy City Attorney; and Serena Christion, Deputy City Attorney, for the City of Los Angeles.

Ricciardulli, J.

INTRODUCTION

We hold here that amendments to Penal Code section 1203a, which generally limit the maximum length of probationary terms for misdemeanor offenses to one year, apply retroactively, to a case which will not become final on appeal as of the January 1, 2021 effective date of the statute. The amendments ameliorated the burdens on persons’ lives and potential carceral consequences of being found in violation of probation, and applying the changes immediately would best serve the Legislature's intent to "allow[ ] for the reinvestment of funding into supportive services for people on misdemeanor ... probation rather than keeping this population on supervision for extended periods" (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), as amended May 6, 2020, p. 3). (See People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 657, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 622, 373 P.3d 435 ["[I]n the absence of contrary indications, a legislative body ordinarily intends for ameliorative changes to the criminal law to extend as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not"].)

Defendant Julius Dobbs Burton Jr. was found guilty in a jury trial of misdemeanor violations of the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code and Los Angeles County Code pertaining to safety provisions in a building which he controlled as the beneficiary of the owner's trust.1 The court placed defendant on probation for 36 months, and he appealed the judgment. The sole contention initially raised on appeal was the court erred in ordering, as a probation condition, that he "annually provide to the court and the People a list of properties in which defendant has an ownership interest." Defendant maintained the condition was invalid because it was unrelated to future criminal activity, and because it violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As discussed below, we reject these arguments.

While the appeal was pending, after the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 1950 into law on September 30, 2020, we notified the parties pursuant to Government Code section 68081 that they could submit supplemental briefs on whether the amendments to Penal Code section 1203a applied retroactively, and whether the 36-month probation term, which included the condition at issue in the present appeal, should be reversed and the case be remanded for the court to impose a one-year term of probation. We considered the briefs filed by the People and defendant, and conclude reversal of the 36-month term is required and the court on remand must impose a term of probation not to exceed one year.

BACKGROUND

At trial, evidence was presented that fire inspectors and other government personnel responded on April 7, 2017 to a building located at 8129 South San Pedro Street in Los Angeles. Although the building was zoned only for commercial use, seven persons were found living inside, two of whom were bedridden. The interior was inadequately illuminated, some of the exits were blocked, there were "illegal walls" which failed to reach up to the ceiling, there were bars on the windows which could not be opened to allow persons to exit, and fire detectors were situated too high to function properly. There were also debris and other material accumulated throughout the location. The building was evacuated due to the imminent threat for the safety of the occupants, and four residents were transported to the hospital for medical care.

Cal Burton, defendant's father, was the trustee of the trust that owned the building, and defendant was the beneficiary. Robin Massimo was a real estate agent who was hired to manage the property through a contract signed by defendant as "the owner," and he testified that he followed defendant's commands with regard to the upkeep and collection of rents from occupants of the property. Michelle LeCavalier, a Chief Environmental Health Specialist for Los Angeles County, testified she conducted a hearing with regard to the violations discovered in the building, and she asked defendant if it was his property. LeCavalier testified defendant, rather than deny ownership or control, responded, "he had been sick for a long time and had been pretty much out of the business or out of the property and didn't know much about what was going on there."

On May 28, 2019, when defendant was sentenced, the prosecutor told the court defendant had owned five properties, but as of the date of sentencing, they had all been sold. The prosecutor indicated she feared that, if defendant bought or acquired control of other buildings during the court's probationary period, defendant might allow the locations to fall out of compliance and pose a safety threat, as he did with the 8129 South San Pedro location. The prosecutor noted defendant could control buildings without personally purchasing them, such as through a limited liability company or by otherwise acquiring a controlling interest, and that simply running defendant's name in government databases would not disclose his ownership interest. To facilitate compliance with terms of probation requiring he obey all laws and building codes, the prosecutor asked that defendant be ordered to provide an annual list of properties that came under his control so the health and safety officials could check the locations.

Over the objection by defense counsel that such a condition would be unreasonable and violate defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, the court adopted the prosecutor's proposal. The court stated it was "concerned about future violations for properties that he owns that may not be directly and easily traceable to him. He could escape conceivably probation violations because of that unique structure." The court indicated it was "going to order him to obey all laws, including building codes, fire codes, and so on and that includes properties he has a legal interest in. But how do we enforce that since we don't know what properties he may own?"

As to each of defendant's 16 counts, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 36 months. Conditions of probation included that defendant pay a $2,900 fine plus penalty assessments, make restitution to the Los Angeles Fire Department and Los Angeles Department of Public Health totaling $16,475.35, and that he obey all laws, rules, and orders of the court.

The court further ordered defendant "annually provide to the court and the People a list of properties in which defendant has an ownership interest." The court explained to defendant an "ownership interest" included when his name appears on a deed, when he is the chief executive officer or chief financial officer or managing member of a corporation that owns property, and where he is a limited partner owning property. The court set a date for defendant to provide the first listing of properties where he had an ownership interest or a statement indicating he had no such interest, and further ordered, "then he will be required to provide a list on the anniversary of his sentence each year and report to the People. No hearing required unless one of the parties brings to the court's attention, more than likely the People for the need for a potential probation violation hearing. [¶] In other words, essentially, the People would be calendaring a probation violation hearing based on their investigation." Defendant stated he understood and accepted the terms of his probation.

DISCUSSION
Reasonableness

As to whether the probation condition at issue is reasonable, we review the condition for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67.) "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 ....’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 ( Lent ), fn. omitted; accord, People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 32, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 685, 235 P.3d 11.) "The test is ... in the conjunctive, that is, the three factors must all be found to be present in order to invalidate a condition of probation." ( People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 ; see Lent , supra , 15 Cal.3d at p. 486, fn. 1, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.)

Defendant asserts the condition of probation requiring him to annually provide a list in which he has an ownership interest was unreasonable because it failed to satisfy the third category in Lent , arguing the condition was not reasonably related to defendant's future criminality. As mentioned above, because the test is in the conjunctive, even if the third category was not satisfied, the condition is valid, because it satisfies the first category (having a relationship to the crime of which defendant was convicted). Defendant was found guilty of crimes pertaining to the unsafe condition of a building that he controlled by virtue of being the beneficiary of a trust that owned the property. Ordering him, as a condition of probation, to provide a list of properties in which he acquired an ownership interest to ensure his properties were safe and code-compliant, was related to the offenses that the jury found him guilty of.

In addition, the condition of probation was proper...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Flores
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 2022
    ...792 ( Sims ); People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 881–882, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ( Quinn ); People v. Burton (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 14–16, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 797 ( Burton ); see People v. Faial (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 738, 745, 746–747, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 [Assem. Bill No. 1950 appl......
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2021
    ...(2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 657, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 622, 373 P.3d 435 ( Conley ).)Our conclusion is consistent with People v. Burton (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, a recent decision from the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court giving retroactive application to ......
  • People v. Pinedo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 2021
    ...792 ( Sims ); People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 882–883, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ( Quinn ); People v. Burton (2020 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 14–16, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 797 ( Burton ).) In several of those cases, the People argued, without success, that probation is not punishment and, theref......
  • People v. Stewart
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 2021
    ...273 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ( Sims ); People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ( Quinn ); People v. Burton (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 797 ( Burton ) [Assem. Bill 1950 limitation on duration of misdemeanor probation].) As explained in those opinions, while p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT