226 Cal. App. 4th 769
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kendrick pled guilty to two counts of lewd acts upon a child and received a 10-year term suspended execution; he was placed on five years' formal probation with an Internet restriction requiring prior approval.
- The court warned that any probation violation could result in execution of the 10-year sentence.
- Within six months Kendrick violated probation by loitering near a minor-targeted locale; he admitted the violation and probation was reinstated with a jail term.
- Three years later, Kendrick’s probation officer reported Internet access at his home and that Kendrick had used the Internet to contact an adult woman; Kendrick claimed prior permission or no restriction.
- A formal probation violation hearing followed with multiple witnesses; the court found Kendrick in violation and later stated it would revoke and terminate probation based on the aggregate violations.
- On appeal Kendrick argued (A) the Internet restriction was unconstitutional and (B) the probation revocation was an abuse of discretion; the court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Internet restriction unconstitutional as applied? | People argues the claim is forfeited and, if reached, the restriction was valid given the record. | Kendrick contends the ban is overbroad and not tailored to rehabilitation or public protection. | Forfeited; not considered on the merits. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking/terminating probation? | People contends the court acted within broad discretion given prior violations and risk to the community. | Kendrick claims the termination was improper and premature. | No abuse of discretion; probation revoked and terminated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (forfeiture and facial challenge principles for probation conditions)
- People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993) (forfeiture when defendant fails to object to probation conditions)
- In re Hudson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1, 143 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2006) (Internet use restrictions linked to probation officer approval)
- In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. App. 2010) (limits on adult Internet access under probation conditions)
- People v. Jones (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1309, 224 Cal.App.3d 1309 (Cal. App. 1990) (probation violations and discretionary decisions)