People v. Brandão
210 Cal. App. 4th 568
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant Antonio Brandáo pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine, a felony offense.
- Trial court suspended sentence and placed Brandáo on three years’ formal probation with a no-gang-contact condition.
- Probation report proposed a broad no-gang-contact condition restricting association with gang members, drug users, or others on probation/parole, with a family-member exception.
- Defense objected, arguing no nexus to gangs; trial court stated aim was to keep him away from the wrong crowd.
- On appeal, Brandáo challenged the no-gang-contact condition as unconstitutional and unsupported by the record.
- Court concludes the no-gang-contact condition is not reasonably related to the current offense and modifies the condition to remove gang-contact language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver/forfeiture of the issue | Brandáo preserved via timely objection. | No forfeiture because objection raised before court ended debate. | Claim preserved; not waived or forfeited. |
| Validity of a no-gang-contact probation condition when no ties to gangs are shown | Lopez supports standard no-gang-contact as a standard condition. | No current or prior gang ties; condition lacks nexus to current/future criminality. | Condition invalid; not reasonably related to future criminality or statutory authority. |
| Appropriate standard of review for probation conditions affecting civil liberties | Abuse-of-discretion standard suffices because no constitutional rights implicated. | Constitutional implications require closer tailoring and strict scrutiny when rights are affected. | Court uses standard tied to rights, then applies abuse-of-discretion where no constitutional rights implicated. |
| Scope of permissible probation conditions under Lent and Penal Code 1203.1(j) | No-gang-contact condition is permissible as furthering rehabilitation and public safety. | Condition lacks reasonable nexus to current/future criminality and to the offense. | No-gang-contact condition not permissible here; modification required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975) (criteria for probation conditions related to future criminality)
- In re Babak S., 18 Cal.App.4th 1077 (Cal. App. 1993) (probation conditions must relate to crime or future conduct)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) (limits on reviewing probation conditions; constitutional considerations)
- People v. O’Neil, 165 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 2008) (preservation and scope of review when constitutional rights implicated)
- People v. Lopez, 66 Cal.App.4th 615 (Cal. App. 1998) (no-gang-contact as standard condition; noted limitations)
- In re Gardineer, 79 Cal.App.4th 148 (Cal. App. 2000) (forfeiture rule for probation-conditions challenges)
- In re Antonio C., 83 Cal.App.4th 1029 (Cal. App. 2000) (preservation of appellate challenges when objection is limited)
- People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993) (requires reasonable opportunity to present arguments on probation conditions)