People v. Sandoval
D071560
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Marco Sandoval pleaded no contest to felony corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5(f)(1)) as a second qualifying offense; sentence included suspended five-year upper term and three years felony probation. Count 2 and other enhancements were dismissed.
- The trial court issued a three-year criminal protective order (CPO) under Penal Code § 1203.097(a)(2) prohibiting defendant from initiating any personal, electronic, telephonic, or written contact with his wife A.H., and imposing a 100-yard stay-away requirement.
- A.H. requested termination of the CPO and stated she welcomed contact; probation recommended a narrower “good conduct” order; the prosecutor explained A.H. had been uncooperative earlier.
- The court kept the CPO because Sandoval had ongoing substance abuse and anger-management problems, repeatedly failed or was disruptive in programs, tested positive for methamphetamine, and had an extensive criminal history.
- Sandoval appealed only the CPO’s stay-away/no-contact provision, arguing it violated his marital privacy and association rights and should be modified to allow mutual contact (or a simple good-conduct order).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the CPO as reasonable and constitutionally valid but modified it to expressly allow the victim (A.H.) to initiate contact on terms acceptable to her while prohibiting Sandoval from initiating contact until further court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CPO under §1203.097(a)(2) that bars defendant from initiating any contact is appropriate and reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety | CPO is appropriate given defendant’s conviction, recidivism risk, substance abuse, and program noncompliance | CPO is overbroad; infringes marital privacy and association; court should instead impose a "good conduct" order allowing mutual contact | Affirmed: CPO was appropriate and reasonably related to the crime and future criminality given facts (victim safety, drug use, program failure) |
| Whether the no-contact CPO unconstitutionally infringes association and marital privacy rights | State interest in preventing domestic violence justifies limitations on association; courts may impose such conditions when narrowly tailored | Defendant contends total ban on initiating contact is broader than necessary and violates constitutional rights | Affirmed in part: restriction on defendant initiating contact is justified; court modifies order to clarify victim may initiate contact on terms acceptable to her, preserving narrow tailoring |
| Whether terms of probation/CPO must be narrowly tailored and reasonable | State argues requirement to protect victim and incentivize rehabilitation satisfies narrow tailoring | Defendant argues order lacks narrow tailoring because it does not expressly allow victim-initiated contact | Court requires narrow tailoring: modifies CPO to allow victim-initiated contact, keeping prohibition on defendant initiating contact in place |
| Standard of review for CPO issued under §1203.097(a)(2) | — | — | Court reviews reasonableness for abuse of discretion and independently reviews constitutional challenges; applies Lent/Olguin three-part test to uphold condition |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (clarifies statutory interpretation principles for penal statutes)
- People v. Jungers, 127 Cal.App.4th 698 (upheld protective order limiting defendant-initiated contact while allowing victim-initiated contact)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (sets out Lent three-part test for validity of probation conditions)
- Lent v. California, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes the three-prong standard for probation conditions)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (probation conditions may be related to conviction and future criminality)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation conditions that limit constitutional rights must be closely tailored)