People v. Gomez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN413225
- Trial judge
- Michael D. Washington
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court imposed a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from possessing or using marijuana, despite the substance not being involved in the offense and being legal for adults. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified, directing the trial court to strike the marijuana condition because it violated the *Lent* test for probation conditions.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a probation condition prohibiting the possession or use of marijuana“Plainly, the court had no basis to impose the condition over a timely objection, and therefore, we will agree with the parties that the condition must be removed.” | abuse of discretion | error | agree with court The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a condition that restricted lawful conduct without a reasonable relationship to the crime or future criminality, relying on the *Lent* factors. The court noted the lack of any specific justification beyond a blanket policy, which failed the legal standard for probation conditions restricting lawful behavior. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 — Establishes the three-part test for invalidating probation conditions that restrict lawful conduct: (1) no relationship to the crime, (2) relates to conduct not in itself criminal, and (3) not reasonably related to future criminality.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — Trial courts have broad discretion in selecting probation conditions to assist rehabilitation and prevent further criminal behavior, subject to limitations when conditions prevent or require lawful conduct.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the *Lent* test to determine that the probation condition was invalid because it restricted lawful conduct (marijuana possession) with no nexus to the offense or defendant's history. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the lack of justification provided by the trial court, relying on established California precedent.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Gomez's guilty plea to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, placed him on two years' probation, struck a challenged no-alcohol condition but, over timely objection, imposed a condition forbidding use or possession of marijuana even though marijuana played no part in the offense or his history. On appeal, with the Attorney General conceding error, the Court of Appeal held the condition failed all three prongs of People v. Lent, remanded with directions to strike it, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition, over timely objection, of a probation condition prohibiting the use or possession of marijuana where marijuana had no connection to the offense or the defendant's history“Plainly, the court had no basis to impose the condition over a timely objection, and therefore, we will agree with the parties that the condition must be removed.” | abuse of discretion | error (discretion) | agree with court The opinion correctly recites the conjunctive three-part Lent test and applies it to a record showing (1) no relationship between marijuana and the assault offense, (2) adult marijuana use is lawful in California, and (3) no evidence linking marijuana to Gomez's future criminality, the sole basis being the probation officer's blanket policy. A blanket departmental preference is not a case-specific reason, and the court's inconsistent treatment of the alcohol condition (struck despite a prior DUI) underscores the absence of a reasoned basis. The result follows directly from Lent and Carbajal; the Attorney General's concession further supports it. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 — A probation condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of conviction, (2) relates to conduct not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct not reasonably related to future criminality.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — Trial courts have broad discretion to select probation conditions that foster rehabilitation and protect public safety, subject to the Lent limitations.
- missed: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — The third Lent prong requires that the burden imposed by a condition on the probationer be proportionate to its legitimate interests in preventing future criminality; a condition is not justified merely because it might facilitate general supervision.
- missed: People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375 — Probation conditions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and under Lent a condition is valid if it satisfies any one of the three prongs, so all three must be present to invalidate it.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct Lent framework to an uncontested record and reaches a result compelled by the absence of any case-specific justification for the marijuana condition. It is brief, however, and does not cite the Supreme Court's more recent refinement of the third Lent prong in In re Ricardo P. or expressly state the abuse-of-discretion standard articulated in Olguin, though neither omission affects the outcome given the Attorney General's concession.
Opinion
Filed 3/21/22 P. v. Gomez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D078770
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN413225)
CHASE RYAN GOMEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. Matthew R. Garcia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In February 2021, Chase Ryan Gomez pleaded guilty to one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court accepted the plea agreement and placed Gomez on probation for two years, subject to various terms and conditions. At the sentencing hearing, Gomez objected to several proposed conditions. Among those objected to were a condition forbidding use of alcohol and one forbidding the use or possession of marijuana. Neither substance played any part in the events involved in the offense. The court struck the alcohol condition but declined to strike the marijuana condition. The only discernable difference apparent in the record is the statement of the probation officer that Probation did not think it appropriate for people on probation to possess marijuana. Gomez appeals, challenging only the decision to impose the marijuana condition of probation. The Attorney General agrees that the court erred in imposing the marijuana condition on the record before us. We agree with the parties that the condition is not consistent with the decision in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). We will remand the case to the superior court with directions to strike the challenged condition.2 DISCUSSION Possession and use of marijuana by adults are now legal in California. Here, possession or use of marijuana had no part in the offense or played any 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 The facts of the offense are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal, except that the parties agree the use or possession of marijuana was not involved in the offense or the facts leading to it. We will therefore omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 role in Gomez’s history of substance abuse. We must examine the condition in light of the limitations placed on probation conditions by the decision in Lent. Trial courts have broad discretion in selecting conditions of probation they think would assist in the rehabilitation of the offender and which would also help prevent further criminal behavior. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.) Where the proposed conditions are preventing or requiring that which is otherwise lawful, the conditions are subject to some limitations. Probation conditions can be declared invalid if all three of the conditions set forth in Lent are present. Specifically, (1) the condition has no relationship to the crime for which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486.) Gomez and the Attorney General argue all three Lent factors are present here. Possession of marijuana in this instance is legal and had no part in the current offense or Gomez’s criminal history. The court offered no reason for the condition save the probation officer’s view that probationers should not use or possess marijuana. Since the court struck the alcohol condition, even though Gomez had a prior drunk driving offense, but imposed the marijuana condition with no history of abuse, the decision to overrule the objection was acceptance of the probation officer’s blanket requirement for probationers. Plainly, the court had no basis to impose the condition over a timely objection, and therefore, we will agree with the parties that the condition must be removed.
3 DISPOSITION The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to strike the condition prohibiting Gomez from lawfully possessing or using marijuana. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Carbajal S036146 · 1995-08-14
- People v. Lent Crim. 17984 · 1975-10-30