People v. Gabriel
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Gabriel pled guilty in two cases (SS091125A and SS091848A) and was placed on three years' probation with suspended imposition of sentence.
- Case SS091125A probation conditions included not being present at gang gathering areas and not associating with known gang members or others under supervision, but the minute order used broader phrasing.
- Case SS091848A involved bail conditions mirroring pages 18–19 of the packet, including not associating with persons suspected to be gang members or drug users.
- Gabriel challenged the written gang conditions as inaccurate to the oral pronouncements and as unconstitutionally vague.
- The trial court’s oral pronouncements in SS091125A and SS091848A differed from the minute orders, creating a conflict the court addressed on appeal.
- The appellate court ordered the gang conditions modified to conform to the oral pronouncements and to remove vague terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are written gang conditions inconsistent with oral pronouncements? | People contends minute order should conform to oral pronouncement. | Gabriel argues minute order and oral pronouncement conflict, harming notice. | Oral pronouncement controls; conditions modified to reflect it. |
| Is the term 'suspect' in the probation condition unconstitutionally vague | Oral pronouncement matches minute order without issue. | Word 'suspect' creates vagueness and uncertain notice. | The word 'suspect' is vague; condition must delete 'suspect'. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Farell, 28 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2002) (oral pronouncement controls when discrepancy with minute order)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (probation conditions must be precise to be valid against vagueness challenges)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) (probation as a privilege may justify limitations on rights; must be precise)