People v. Alvarez CA2/6

Filed 4/14/25 P. v. Alvarez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B333729 (Super. Ct. No. 2020025628) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JESUS ALVAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jesus Alvarez was convicted by jury of possession of a firearm in violation of probation (Pen. Code, § 29815, subd. (a)).1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation. Appellant contends the alcohol and marijuana-related conditions of probation are invalid pursuant to People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent),2 and unconstitutionally overbroad.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398 (Moran).

Alternatively, he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. Procedural Background In September 2020, appellant was charged with possession of a firearm in violation of probation. He was convicted by jury of the offense in August 2023. Thereafter, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted probation, and ordered appellant serve 240 days in county jail. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected to some of the terms of probation, stating: “[A]nd I would ask that marijuana and alcohol terms please be stricken . . . .” The trial court denied the request, stating: “I’m including the marijuana terms. By your own account you believe you are in need of some drug treatment or rehabilitation. I don’t dispute that at all. The reason I’m imposing jail as opposed to rehabilitation, I don’t believe this particular offense was related to drugs. Certainly that doesn’t mean that I’m discouraging you from engaging in that type of treatment or rehabilitation. I’m sure you would benefit from that. [¶] I’m including the marijuana terms under the rationale that was described in [People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, review granted and cause transferred April 20, 2022, S268787] that if there’s an understanding that there’s an underlying drug problem, you know, any sort of mind-altering substance that’s not prescribed to you I think we need to keep out of the equation so you can focus on that sobriety, get where you need to be. [¶] I think it would benefit you in that regard in terms of getting to a place where you can remain sober with the understanding marijuana is treated much like alcohol in this day and age if you are over 21 . . . . [¶] If you are going to participate in some sort of evidence-based