People v. Petty
213 Cal. App. 4th 1410
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Petty pled guilty to felony grand theft and was placed on three years' probation.
- Probation conditions included staying at least 100 yards from the victim's residence and complying with all directions of his mental health worker to take medications as directed.
- The court modified the medication condition to be subject to timely objection and reduced the stay-away distance to 50 yards.
- A protective order required Petty to stay at least 100 yards from the victim and her daughter and barred contact, stalking, or harassment.
- Petty challenged the medication and stay-away conditions, and the court's authority to issue the protective order.
- The opinion ultimately strikes the medication condition and affirms the 50-yard stay-away order, with modification to the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medications as probation condition | Petty argues the medication condition violates Lent and requires a medically informed record. | Petty contends the condition is unrelated to the crime and infringes liberty without proper medical grounding. | Medication condition struck; not medically justified. |
| Relation to crime/future criminality | Luis F. supports continuing psychotropic meds to prevent future crime. | Adult probationer privacy/ liberty requires medical necessity for such drugs. | Insufficient medical evidence; no reasonable relation to crime or future criminality. |
| Stay-away distance from victim's residence | 50-yard distance is reasonable given the relationship and alleged acts. | 50-yard restriction is overly burdensome on intrastate travel. | Stay-away distance upheld at 50 yards. |
| Protective/stay-away order authority | Order authorized under broad probation powers; protects victims and aids rehabilitation. | Order may be beyond statutory authorization or duplicative of probation terms. | Order valid under section 1203.1(j) with modification to prohibit knowingly coming within 100 yards of protected persons. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Luis F., 177 Cal.App.4th 176 (Cal. App. 2009) (juvenile probation can condition on continued psychotropic medication with doctor-directed prescriptions)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975) (probation conditions must be reasonably related to the crime or future criminality)
- Williams, 356 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2004) (medication conditions require medically informed, on-the-record findings; heightened liberty interest)
- In re Qawi, 32 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (due process/privacy considerations for probation conditions with significant liberty impacts)
- Selga, 162 Cal.App.4th 113 (Cal. App. 2008) (protective orders may be authorized under section 1203.1(j); interplay with 136.2/1203.097)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. App. 2010) (protective orders and travel restrictions considerations in probation context)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (limits on dissemination of protective orders and related remedies)
- People v. Beach, 147 Cal.App.3d 612 (Cal. App. 1983) (travel-related probation conditions must be narrowly tailored)
- In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141 (Cal. App. 1979) (travel restrictions in probation contexts)