The People v. Harrison CA1/1

Filed 10/7/13 P. v. Harrison CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138258 v. ANGELA MARIE HARRISON, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR162397) Defendant and Appellant.

In this appeal, defendant Angela Marie Harrison challenges conditions of probation imposed by the trial court after she entered a no contest plea to one felony count, Penal Code section 118, subdivision (a) (perjury in an application for assistance).1 The appeal is after a final judgment. There is no certificate of probable cause in the matter. The appeal is pursuant to section 1237. After review of the matter, we find no merit in defendant‘s claims and affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 18, 2013, the District Attorney of Napa County filed an information charging defendant with five counts of perjury by false application for aid, a violation of Penal Code section 118, subdivision (a), and one count of obtaining aid by misrepresentation, a violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980, subdivision (c)(2). The information also alleged defendant had served a prior prison term in violation of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

On January 29, 2013, based on a negotiated plea, defendant pled no contest to one count of perjury and admitted she had served a prior prison term. The district attorney dismissed the remaining counts of the information. On February 28, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of two years. The sentence imposed included a one-year jail term to be served consecutively with a sentence defendant was already serving, and a one-year term in a mandatory supervision program. On March 26, 2013, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS From November 2009 through May 2010, defendant collected $1,941 in cash assistance and $537 in food stamps. She claimed the moneys based on the representation she had full custody and was the care giver for her child. On October 25, 2010, defendant admitted to an investigator for Napa County Health and Human Services she did not provide full care or custody for her child during the relevant period when she obtained public assistance. DISCUSSION I. The Weapon Prohibition Condition Should Be Modified. As part of the sentence, the trial court imposed the following condition of mandatory supervision: ―Do not own or possess any firearm, ammunition or other weapon.‖ Defendant now argues this condition is vague because the condition does not specify what objects would be ―other weapon[s].‖ Also, she argues the provision does not contain an express requirement that defendant knowingly violate the weapons condition. She asks the condition be modified to prohibit ―knowingly‖ owning or possessing any object that she ―intends‖ to use as a weapon. The Attorney General concedes the condition imposed here needs to be modified. Our current sentencing law provides that instances of mandatory supervision include conditions applicable to probation. (§ 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B)(i).) Any probation condition must include ―fair warning.‖ (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.) A condition of probation is not impermissibly vague if it is specific enough to inform a person how to comply with the obligation and permit a court to assess whether