People v. Garcia
Decision Date | 01 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. F018987,F018987 |
Citation | 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 340,19 Cal.App.4th 97 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Ricardo GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant David Garcia pled no contest to one count of petty theft with a prior conviction (Pen.Code, §§ 666/488) and, in an unrelated municipal court case, single counts of driving with a suspended license (Veh.Code, § 14601.2) and alcohol related reckless driving (Veh.Code, § 23103.5). The court placed appellant on probation for two years and imposed various conditions of probation. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we will conclude that the court did not err in imposing a probation condition requiring narcotic testing. In the published portion, we will conclude that the probation condition that appellant not associate with any felons, ex-felons or users or sellers of narcotics was unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment and otherwise affirm.
Appellant pled no contest to the theft of a handgun. At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified that she and appellant lived together. She testified further that one morning appellant
According to the probation report, appellant's prior criminal record includes a 1983 conviction for possession of marijuana, a 1984 conviction for "Drunk Driving," and a 1985 conviction for "Riding a Bicycle While Under the Influence of Alcohol."
The court imposed numerous conditions of probation, including ordering appellant to
Appellant contends both of the above conditions "are unreasonable and overbroad, and[ ] ... should be deemed invalid." We disagree.
Respondent does not challenge appellant's right to contest conditions of probation on this appeal, even though appellant agreed to the conditions in the superior court. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802, "[E]xisting law overwhelmingly said no such objection [to probation conditions on grounds such as those urged here] was required [in order to preserve such objections for appeal]." (Id. at p. 238, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802, fn. omitted.) In Welch, the court held "that failure to timely challenge a probation condition on ... grounds [such as those urged here] in the trial court waives the claim on appeal." (Id. at p. 237, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802.) However, the court also stated, "[T]he objection and waiver rule announced herein shall not apply to defendant or any other litigant whose probation conditions were considered at a sentencing hearing held before the instant decision becomes final." (Id. at p. 238, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802.) Since appellant's case falls into that class of cases, there was no waiver here.
Penal Code section 1203.1 authorizes the trial court to impose reasonable conditions of probation. However, a trial court's "discretion [to impose such conditions under Penal Code section 1203.1] is not boundless; the authority is wholly statutory, and the statute furnishes and limits the measure of authority which the court may exercise." (People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356, 201 Cal.Rptr. 187.)
The limits of the court's discretion are determined by a three-pronged test. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.) "As with any exercise of discretion, the sentencing court violates this standard when its determination is arbitrary or capricious or ' "exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered." ' " (People v. Welch, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 234, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802.)
Narcotics Testing Condition *
" " (People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 681.)
The condition requiring appellant to refrain from associating with users and sellers of narcotics, felons and ex-felons impinged on appellant's constitutional right of freedom of association. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 1; cf. Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 212-213, 211 Cal.Rptr. 398, 695 P.2d 695.) Thus, it " 'must be narrowly drawn.' " ( People v. Hackler, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 681.)
Appellant argues that the association condition is not sufficiently narrowly drawn because it limits appellant's association with persons not known to him to be users and sellers of narcotics, felons or ex-felons. We agree. In People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna
...To the extent that it might not be, we are confident that the trial court will, as the Court of Appeal did in People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 103, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, impose such a limiting construction on paragraph (a) by inserting a knowledge requirement should an attempt be ma......
-
People v. Lopez
...it forbids contact with a member of a gang even though Lopez may not know of the person's gang affiliation. (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102-103, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 [language prohibited association with all felons regardless of the defendant's Lopez contends condition No. 15 ......
-
Wilfong v. Com.
...to rehabilitation and protecting public); United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 128 (3d Cir.1999)(same); People v. Garcia, 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 342 (1993); and People v. Bauer, 211 Cal.App.3d 937, 260 Cal.Rptr. 62, 65 63. Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612, 93 S.Ct. 2908. 64. Se......
-
In re Sheena K.
...modified to prohibit defendant from associating "`with any person known to defendant to be a gang member'"]; People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 103, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 [condition of probation modified to provide that the defendant "is not to associate with persons he knows to be use......