57 Cal.App.5th 960
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In May 2014 George Gonzalez pled guilty to three misdemeanors and was placed on 3‑year probation with conditions requiring him to bring all San Diego properties he owned into municipal‑code compliance.
- Gonzalez admitted multiple probation violations (2014–2017). In Sept. 2015 the parties stipulated new conditions specific to the Aldine Drive property: corrective work, inspections, and a clause requiring Gonzalez to list the Aldine property for sale at market value if he failed to obtain final approvals within prescribed times.
- At a March 2017 hearing Gonzalez agreed to extend his probation to February 21, 2020 and signed the stipulated conditions; the court noted potential jurisdictional concerns but kept the extension.
- After further noncompliance, the court in May 2018 found Gonzalez in violation, lifted the stayed 90‑day custody, and ordered him to sell the Aldine property pursuant to the earlier probation condition.
- The appellate division vacated the sale order, concluding sale as punishment was unauthorized and constituted an unconstitutional taking; the Court of Appeal (transferred) reversed the appellate division and affirmed the trial court order.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Gonzalez’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of probation extension beyond 3 years | Gonzalez agreed to the extension and is estopped from challenging it | Extension was invalid because section 1203a caps probation at 3 years | Estoppel: Gonzalez expressly stipulated to the extension and cannot now challenge it |
| Whether forced sale is unauthorized municipal punishment | Order was a probation condition, not a legislatively prescribed penalty; municipal code omission irrelevant | Sale of real property is not a listed municipal punishment and therefore invalid | Sale was imposed as a probation condition; lack of municipal statutory authorization for a punishment is irrelevant |
| Takings clause challenge (federal/state) | Judicially‑ordered sale pursuant to probation conditions is not facially an unconstitutional taking; many non‑eminent‑domain proceedings divest property lawfully | Forced sale by court is a taking that must proceed only under eminent domain statutes | Facial takings challenge fails; Gonzalez did not preserve an as‑applied challenge and did not show the condition is invalid in every application |
| Reasonableness under Lent (probation‑condition test) | Lent objection was not raised below and is forfeited | Condition requiring sale is unreasonable and invalid under Lent | Forfeited: Gonzalez failed to raise a Lent challenge in the trial court or in his opening brief, so the claim is waived |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jackson, 134 Cal.App.4th 929 (estoppel bars defendant from challenging probation extension she requested)
- People v. Ford, 61 Cal.4th 282 (defendant who consents may be estopped from challenging court jurisdiction over post‑probation proceedings)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (probation condition valid only if reasonably related to the crime or future criminality)
- In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (reasonableness standard for probation conditions)
- People v. Patton, 41 Cal.App.5th 934 (facial constitutional challenges may be raised on appeal; as‑applied challenges must be raised below)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probationers’ liberty is diminished and probation conditions are evaluated in that context)
- City of Perris v. Stamper, 1 Cal.5th 576 (takings clause overview)
- People v. Ottovich, 41 Cal.App.3d 532 (maximum probation duration governed by section 1203a)