People v. Brooks
D070918
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Brooks pled no contest to unlawful possession of ammunition and admitted a prison prior; sentence stipulated (3 years + 1 year prior, suspended) with 3 years formal probation.
- At a probation check deputies found methamphetamine, paraphernalia, needles, and three live 9mm rounds in Brooks's residence; drug-related counts were dismissed but the court had a Harvey waiver to consider dismissed facts.
- The sentencing order imposed 29 probation terms, including: (1) participate in a counseling/educational program “as directed by the probation officer,” (2) "follow all standard terms of probation," and (3) pay a $7 per-test drug-testing fee under a county ordinance and Pen. Code § 1203.1ab.
- Brooks appealed specific probation terms (program-as-directed, follow-standard-terms, and drug-testing fee), arguing vagueness, improper delegation, lack of due process notice, and statutory inapplicability of § 1203.1ab to his ammunition conviction.
- Trial court record and probation report showed the court intended a drug-and-alcohol program and imposed multiple drug-related conditions; Brooks filed a notice of appeal based on post-plea sentencing matters (no certificate of probable cause required).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) "Participate in a counseling/educational program as directed by probation officer" — vagueness/delegation | People: Court and parties knew probation officer recommended a drug/alcohol course; term was not vague. | Brooks: Grants unlimited discretion to probation officer; unconstitutionally vague and unlawfully delegates judicial power. | Modified: Term clarified to require participation in a drug-and-alcohol counseling/educational program as directed by PO. |
| 2) "Follow all standard terms of probation" — notice/vagueness | People: Implied that standard terms are those listed; not a problem. | Brooks: Phrase is vague and may impose undisclosed conditions; fails to give notice. | Struck: Phrase deemed superfluous and potentially vague; removed from order. |
| 3) Drug-testing fee under § 1203.1ab — statutory authority | People: Under Harvey waiver, the ammunition conviction "involved" drugs because drugs were found where ammo was located; fee authorized. | Brooks: § 1203.1ab applies only when defendant is convicted of a drug-related offense; his sole conviction was ammunition possession. | Struck: Fee unauthorized because defendant was not convicted of an offense involving controlled substances per § 1203.1ab. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harvey, 25 Cal.3d 754 (1979) (defendant may consent to sentencing court’s consideration of facts underlying dismissed counts)
- People v. Cuevas, 44 Cal.4th 374 (2008) (certificate of probable cause not required for appeals raising post-plea sentencing issues)
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (1996) (limits on general waivers of appeal rights; unknown future errors not waived)
- People v. Mumm, 98 Cal.App.4th 812 (2002) (general appeal waiver does not bar challenge to later-unforeseen sentencing issues)
- People v. Lopez, 66 Cal.App.4th 615 (1998) (vagueness doctrine: probation conditions must give adequate notice and not delegate basic policy)
- People v. O'Neil, 165 Cal.App.4th 1351 (2008) (trial courts have broad discretion to set probation conditions under § 1203.1)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (appellate courts may modify unconstitutional probation conditions)
- In re Shaun R., 188 Cal.App.4th 1129 (2010) (standard of review for constitutional challenges to probation conditions)
- People v. Cervantes, 154 Cal.App.3d 353 (1984) (§ 1203.1 does not permit surrendering core judicial decisions, e.g., restitution, to probation officer)