People v. Dominguez, Cr. 13138

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HUFSTEDLER; KAUS, P.J., and STEPHENS
• Citation: 64 Cal.Rptr. 290,256 Cal.App.2d 623
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mercedes DOMINGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 04 December 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 13138

Page 290

64 Cal.Rptr. 290 256 Cal.App.2d 623 The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Mercedes DOMINGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. 13138. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California. Dec. 4, 1967.

Page 291

[256 Cal.App.2d 624] Richard S. Buckley, Public Defender, Floyd W. Davis, and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Francis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

HUFSTEDLER, Associate Justice.

Appellant appeals from an order revoking probation and from the judgment pronounced and ordered executed on October 27, 1966.

The question presented is the validity of the condition of probation that appellant 'not * * * become pregnant without being married.' The sole basis for revocation of probation was that appellant had become pregnant without being married.

Page 292

Summary of the Record

Appellant was found guilty of second degree robbery. On January 21, 1965, appellant was driving an automobile in the [256 Cal.App.2d 625] company of two young women. Appellant's companions robbed a liquor store and after the robbery the appellant drove them away from the scene of the crime. Appellant's conviction is not challenged on the merits. Probation and sentence hearing was set for May 13, 1965. The probation report included the following facts: Appellant, then 20 years old, had two small children and was pregnant. Appellant had never been married. She had been receiving aid from the Bureau of Public Assistance since her first pregnancy. Prior to the offense of which she was convicted she had had no conflict with the law. The probation officer recommended that appellant be granted probation on specified conditions, not including the challenged condition.

At the probation and sentence hearing on May 13, 1965, the same trial judge who ultimately revoked probation read to appellant and her counsel the conditions of probation. In explaining the conditions of probation the court said, 'The third condition is that you are not to live with any man to whom you are not married and you are not to become pregnant until after you become married. Now this will develop by just becoming pregnant. You are going to prison unless you are married first. You have already too many of those. Do you understand that (sic) I am saying?' The appellant replied affirmatively. The court then stated, 'Do you know where the Planned Parenthood Clinic is?' The defendant said she did not. The court said, 'If you insist on this kind of conduct you can at least consider the other people in society who are taking care of your children. You have had too many that some others are taking care of other than you and the father.'

On February 3, 1966, the court received a supplemental probation report stating that appellant had made good progress on probation. 'She remains in the home caring for her family most of the time, keeps the home clean, manages her money well. * * *' The probation officer recommended continued probation. Pursuant to a direction for a further progress report, appellant's probation officer in October of 1966 reported that appellant was still unmarried and again pregnant. The probation officer stated that appellant continued to be cooperative, that she was interested in the welfare of her children, and that there was no evidence of any illegal activities. The probation officer recommended that probation be modified by ordering defendant to serve a few days in custody, all other conditions to remain unchanged. Thereafter, [256 Cal.App.2d 626] appellant and her counsel reappeared in court in October 27, 1966.

Appellant's counsel told the court that appellant had been a good mother to her children, her household was adequately maintained and the children were adequately cared for. He also informed the court that she had received advice on contraception from a private doctor. The court stated: 'Start mentioning the responsibility or lack of it insofar as supporting the children she now has and the ability to support the one she is having. * * * She is abandoning that responsibility to somebody else. * * *' The court added, 'It appears to me this woman is irresponsible; she is foisting obligations upon others, and one of the objectives of probation is to teach and encourage responsibility in all phases including the economics of life and being able to support the dependents who will naturally flow from this sort of conduct. She is clearly in violation of probation. It appears to me that probation is not serving any useful purpose.'

Appellant's counsel urged upon the court that appellant's pregnancy was not a willful disregard of the conditions of probation. In response the court stated, 'She understands what causes it and how to prevent...