People v. Dominguez

Decision Date04 December 1967
Docket NumberCr. 13138
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mercedes DOMINGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

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.

Summary of the Record

Appellant was found guilty of second degree robbery. On January 21, 1965, appellant was driving an automobile in the 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, 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 it. And her own statement to the probation officer is that she started going with this man, dating him, for some time, for a number of months. She saw him steadily and did not have intercourse with him; then she started having intercourse but always used birth control. For some reason the birth control medication was not effective and now she expects a child. This is outside the benefits of marriage. This was clearly explained at the time and this was the chance she wanted to take--of having a child outside of marriage; that if so then she was going to prison. I do not intend to go back on what I said.'

Appellant's counsel requested a stay of execution for one week to enable appellant to make suitable arrangements for the shelter and protection of her small children and to permit appellant 'time to explain and try to condition these children for the psychic shock of suddenly losing their mother.' The court responded, 'I don't think she is capable of doing that,' and denied stay of execution.

Challenged Condition Void

The trial court has very wide discretion in setting the conditions of probation, but its discretion is not boundless. Discretion is granting or withholding probation 'must be impartial, guided by 'fixed legal principles, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law.' People v. Jones, 87 Cal.App. 482, 493--499, 262 P. 361.' People v. Wade (1959) 53 Cal.2d 322, 338, 1 Cal.Rptr. 683, 694, 348 P.2d 116, 127.

Section 1203.1 of the Penal Code sets the limits of the trial court's discretion in imposing conditions of probation. That section of the code provides in pertinent part: 'The court may impose and require any or all of the above mentioned * * * conditions 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 such breach and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer * * *.' (Emphasis added.)

A condition of probation which (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 does not serve the statutory ends of probation and is invalid.

Appellant's future pregnancy was unrelated to robbery. Becoming pregnant while unmarried is a misfortune, not a crime. Appellant's future pregnancy had no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
180 cases
  • Mannino, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1971
    ...483, 488--489, 72 Cal.Rptr. 254; People v. Kern (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 962, 964--965, 71 Cal.Rptr. 105; People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 626--627, 64 Cal.Rptr. 290; and People v. Bresin (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 232, 240, 53 Cal.Rptr. 'The appellate courts of this state have had oc......
  • People v. Pointer
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1984
    ...reasonableness of a condition of probation was in this jurisdiction first prescribed in the landmark case of People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627, 64 Cal.Rptr. 290, which was followed by the Supreme Court in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d......
  • People v. Charles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 1985 bench should be held invalid because it is against the public policy of this state (Civ.Code, § 3513, 6 People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 64 Cal.Rptr. 290; People v. Blakeman (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 596, 339 P.2d 202) is not While the statutory right to appeal must be jealousl......
  • People v. Moret
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 2009
    ...condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus (In re Bushman[, supra,] 1 Cal.3d 767, 776 ...; People v. Dominguez [(1967)] 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 629 ; In re Allen [(1969)] 71 Cal.2d 388, 389 [78 Cal.Rptr. 207, 455 P.2d 143]) ...." (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Punishment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • March 30, 2022
    ...which is not reasonably related to future criminality….” People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, citing People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627. Thus, prohibiting a DUI probationer from leaving the state without permission of the Probation Department or Court arguably exceeds t......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Dolly (2007) 40 Cal.4th 458, §7:20.1, Appendix E People v. Domagalski (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1380, §3:33 People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627, §10:27 People v. Dorsey (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 729, §14:48 People v. Doss (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1585, §7:20.23 People v. Dotson (2009)......
  • How Ohio v. Talty provided for future bans on procreation and the consequences that action brings: Ohio v. Talty: hiding in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 19 No. 1, March 2004
    • March 22, 2004
    ...court must determine whether the condition is impermissibly overly broad." Pointer, 151 Cal. 3d at 1139; see also People v. Dominguez, 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627 (1967). (81) Trammell, 751 N.E.2d at 287. (82) Id. at 285. (83) Id. (84) Id. (85) Id. (86) Id. (87) Trammell, 751 N.E.2d at 286. (88......

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