People v. Knight CA3

Filed 8/12/25 P. v. Knight CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101528

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21000238B)

v.

SUSAN ANN KNIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Susan Ann Knight guilty of second degree burglary and conspiracy to commit a crime, the trial court placed her on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that she “enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation program as ordered by probation.” On appeal, Knight argues the condition impermissibly delegates judicial authority to her probation officer. We agree that the condition is an improper delegation

1

of authority. We therefore direct the trial court either to modify the probation condition or strike it completely. We otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In April 2024, a jury found Knight guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true an allegation that Knight’s crimes demonstrated planning, sophistication, or professionalism. In a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court found true allegations that Knight previously served a term in prison and performed poorly under prior supervision. On May 2, 2024, Knight submitted a statement in mitigation, in which trial counsel indicated that she was “willing to comply with any and all terms of probation that this Court orders or as recommended by the Probation Department and desires the opportunity to accept the job and room she has been offered, to be a productive member of society.” The statement included an apology from Knight, as well as a recitation of her efforts to improve her situation. On May 6, 2024, the probation department (the department) submitted a presentence report to the trial court. The department reported that, when asked about “potential substance use history,” Knight “declined to comment.” The department determined Knight posed a high risk of reoffending and recommended the trial court deny probation and impose a split sentence of eight months in “local prison” followed by three years on mandatory supervision. The department further recommended the terms of mandatory supervision include the following: “[D]o not possess or consume controlled substances or drug paraphernalia; submit to chemical testing for controlled substances; participate in rehabilitative programming as recommended by a validated needs assessment tool and directed to by [p]robation.” At sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Knight on two years of formal probation. Included in the various terms and conditions of her probation was an order that Knight serve 210 days in county jail. After she was released