People v. Contreras
237 Cal. App. 4th 868
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Contreras was found with heroin in January 2014 and later stole jeans in February 2014, leading to two felony charges (heroin possession and second degree burglary) while he was on misdemeanor probation.
- He pled no contest to the two felonies with an agreed grant of felony probation; sentencing suspended, three years’ probation, and a few days in county jail were imposed; probation violations were found due to new felonies.
- Two probation conditions at issue: stay out of all Kohl’s stores and stay 25 yards away from Sears Northridge Mall; probation also barred possession of police scanners or surveillance equipment.
- Defendant appealed challenging Kohl’s condition (overbreadth and vagueness) and the surveillance equipment condition (vagueness/overbreadth), and sought Prop. 47 relief via recall of sentence; issues regarding Prop. 47 were not properly before this appeal.
- The appellate court reversed in part, remanding for correction/modification of probation conditions and minute orders, and directed the trial court to address the surveillance equipment condition on remand.
- The court affirmed the core probation framework, held Lent factors apply, and remanded to craft a precise, compliant surveillance equipment condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kohl's condition validity | Contreras argues overbreadth and vagueness; it restricts travel. | Kohl's condition is too broad and not sufficiently tailored. | Kohl's condition not overbroad; minute order corrected; condition reasonably related to rehabilitation. |
| Surveillance equipment condition vagueness/overbreadth | Condition is vague and allows unwitting violations; lacks clear prohibited items. | Condition should include knowledge requirement to avoid unwitting violations. | Vagueness/overbreadth remanded for modification to specify prohibited items and functions; knowledge requirement not universally necessary, but description must be clarified. |
| Prop. 47 recall/resentencing applicability | Defendant seeks retroactive Prop. 47 relief and resentencing as misdemeanors. | Eligible offenses should be reduced to misdemeanors and remanded for resentencing. | Not properly before this appeal; remand for Prop. 47 relief reserved for the trial court’s recall proceedings; appellate court declines to resolve Prop. 47 issues here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (right to travel concerns; geographic restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) (probation conditions must serve statutory purposes; broad discretion but must relate to rehabilitation)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1988) (three-prong Lent test for probation conditions; must relate to future criminality)
- People v. Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (necessity of tailoring restrictions to avoid unconstitutionally broad probation terms)
- People v. Petty, 213 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (knowledge requirement added to certain probation conditions to avoid vagueness)
- People v. Moses, 199 Cal.App.4th 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (probation conditions restricting minors or sexual content; knowledge requirement discussion)
- People v. Patel, 196 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (attempts to codify knowledge requirement for category conditions)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Prop. 47 recall/resentencing framework; retroactivity considerations)