People v. Barajas
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Barajas was identified as one of two men who attacked a third man with beer bottles in San Jose on March 9, 2010.
- Plea agreement: Barajas pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted using a beer bottle and inflicting great bodily injury; probation violation also admitted.
- Sentence: imposition suspended; Barajas released November 9, 2010 with time served; placed on probation for three years with conditions.
- On appeal, Barajas challenged two probation conditions—No. 15 (area of criminal street gang-related activity) and No. 16 (adjacent to any school campus)—as vague and overbroad, asserting travel-right concerns.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment after modifying No. 16 as proposed by the Attorney General, but left No. 15 intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the gang activity condition (No. 15) vague or overbroad? | Barajas argues the phrase ‘area of criminal street gang-related activity’ is vague and overbroad and infringes travel rights. | State contends Leon supports the condition's validity and that knowledge-based limitation cures vagueness. | No modification; condition upheld with knowledge-based approach. |
| Is the school-adjacency condition (No. 16) vague or overbroad requiring modification? | Barajas contends ‘adjacent to a school campus’ is vague and invites arbitrary enforcement. | State concedes need for clarity and advocates a knowledge or proximity standard; AG proposes modification to 50 feet. | Condition modified to require not knowingly be on or within 50 feet of a school during school hours, affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Leon, 181 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (approval of knowledge-based gang-area restriction with modification)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2010) (clarifies knowledge/areas approach and probation officer role in defining prohibited areas)
- In re Michael D., 214 Cal.App.3d 1610 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1989) (gang-area prohibition not unreasonably vague when tailored to rehabilitation)
- In re Ramon M., 178 Cal.App.4th 665 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (probation condition not facially unconstitutional when tailored to avoid gang activity)
- In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1979) (recognition of intrastate travel rights under probation and restrictions)
- People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1996) (distinguishes vagueness vs. overbreadth in gang-related injunctions)