People v. Knight CA1/1
A161725
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 28, 2022Background
- Defendant and a neighbor scuffled when the neighbor believed defendant was going to break into his vehicle; the neighbor grabbed defendant’s sweatshirt while calling police.
- Defendant drew a knife and sliced the neighbor’s arm; the trial court rejected self‑defense, found defendant lacked credibility, and convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)) with a great‑bodily‑injury enhancement (§ 12022.7(a)).
- The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted four years’ probation with numerous conditions, including 180 days in county jail and a requirement to participate in treatment, therapy, and counseling (including residential treatment) as directed by Probation; defendant could be assessed and placed in programs at Probation’s direction.
- Defendant objected at sentencing only to an electronic‑search condition (which was not imposed) and later appealed, arguing the delegation of treatment specifics to Probation was an improper delegation and that the condition was unconstitutionally vague.
- The court imposed various fees (presentence report fee, monthly supervised‑probation fee, administrative screening fee); the Attorney General conceded that any unpaid balances of certain fees must be vacated under Assembly Bill 1869.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leaving selection and specifics of drug/alcohol treatment to Probation unlawfully delegated judicial power or rendered the condition unconstitutionally vague | Delegation permissible; sentencing courts have broad discretion to set probation terms and may leave program specification to Probation; court retains oversight and defendant may seek modification | Delegation surrendered judicial authority to Probation and produced a vague condition lacking required specificity and potential liberty‑depriving consequences | Affirmed. Delegation was proper and not unconstitutionally vague under governing precedent; defendant had notice and counsel agreed residential treatment was possible; forfeiture noted but appellate court reached merit on pure legal issues |
| Whether unpaid balances of certain fees must be vacated under Assembly Bill 1869 | AG conceded unpaid balances of fees under Pen. Code §1203.1b and Gov. Code §29550(f) are unenforceable and must be vacated | Sought vacatur of unpaid balances under AB 1869 | Vacated any unpaid balances of the specified fees as of July 1, 2021; remanded to correct abstract of judgment; otherwise judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Penoli, 46 Cal.App.4th 298 (1996) (upheld probation condition allowing Probation to select residential drug program and determine completion)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (forfeiture exception for obvious legal errors correctable on appeal)
- People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (1993) (failure to object at sentencing ordinarily forfeits challenge to probation conditions)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (1995) (trial courts have broad discretion in imposing probation and its conditions)
- In re David C., 47 Cal.App.5th 657 (2020) (upheld probation conditions delegating evaluations/treatment to Probation or treatment providers)
- People v. Clark, 67 Cal.App.5th 248 (2021) (Assembly Bill 1869 retroactively vacates unpaid portion of certain fees)
- People v. Lopez-Vinck, 68 Cal.App.5th 945 (2021) (criminal justice administrative fees unpaid as of AB 1869 effective date must be vacated)