People v. Jimenez CA4/1
D077974
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2021Background
- In May 2020 Ivan Jimenez was arrested after threatening his mother and damaging her home and car; charges included criminal threats (§ 422) and vandalism (§ 594); he pleaded guilty to vandalism, Harvey waiver given, and count 1 dismissed.
- Probation recommended various conditions including GPS monitoring and broad search terms (“electronic devices,” “recordable media,” “computers”); probation report reported prior threats, mental-health history, and substance use.
- At sentencing (Aug. 18, 2020) the court granted three years formal felony probation, imposed multiple fines/fees but orally stated it would “stay all those fines pending successful completion of probation,” excluded “electronic devices” from searches but retained “recordable media,” and deleted certain fees/costs.
- The written August 18 order conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement (it omitted some stayed fees, retained some conditions differently, and included an ambiguous condition 14(a)).
- Jimenez appealed asserting the written order must be corrected to reflect the oral sentence, certain fees/conditions struck or amended, and that search conditions for “computers” and “recordable media” were unreasonable, overbroad, or vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Written order vs. oral pronouncement — correction of August 18 order (fees and conditions) | People agree the written order must mirror the oral pronouncement and that specific changes (strike §1203.097 fee, add probation conditions 3(a)–(c), strike 9(a), amend 14(a)) are appropriate | Jimenez argues the written order must be corrected to reflect the court’s oral stays/deletions and to remove improper conditions | Court ordered correction of the August 18 Order to conform to the oral pronouncement and directed remand to make specified changes |
| 2) Whether a Dueñas ability-to-pay inquiry is required for stayed fines/fees | People request limited remand to clarify whether the court stayed fines or implicitly found inability to pay and, if needed, to conduct a Dueñas hearing | Jimenez contends the court stayed all fines orally and thus no separate Dueñas hearing is required; he seeks the stay reflected in the written order | Court remanded for the trial court to clarify basis for staying all fines/fees and, if appropriate, to conduct an ability-to-pay inquiry under People v. Dueñas |
| 3) Whether "computers" were intended to be included in search condition 6(n) | People agree remand is necessary to clarify whether the court meant to include “computers” in 6(n) | Jimenez argues search waiver for computers is not reasonably related to preventing future criminality | Court remanded for clarification whether the court meant to include "computers" in condition 6(n) (no substantive ruling on computers beyond the need for clarification) |
| 4) Validity of "recordable media" search condition (reasonableness, overbreadth, vagueness) | People defend the condition as reasonably related to preventing future contact/harassment (social media monitoring), limited by explicit exclusions | Jimenez argues it is not reasonably related to future criminality, is overbroad, or is unconstitutionally vague | Court held the “recordable media” condition was reasonably related to preventing future criminality given facts (prior threats, mental‑health and substance issues, victim’s fear), was not overbroad (exclusions narrow it), and was not unconstitutionally vague (court construed it as social media and invited return if probation interpreted it too broadly) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Farell, 28 Cal.4th 381 (2002) (oral pronouncement controls over minutes/abstract of judgment)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (ability-to-pay hearing required before levying certain fines/fees that could lead to incarceration)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (1975) (standard for reasonableness of probation conditions)
- In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (2019) (probation-condition reasonableness requires proportionality to privacy burden; factual nexus to future criminality)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (probation conditions impermissibly overbroad when they unduly infringe protected rights)
- People v. Pack-Ramirez, 56 Cal.App.5th 851 (2020) (recognition that oral pronouncement controls when conflict exists with written orders)