People v. Clark-Ganas CA3

Filed 9/4/25 P. v. Clark-Ganas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101082

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21000238A)

v.

TERI ELLEN CLARK-GANAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Teri Ellen Clark-Ganas challenges a probation condition requiring her to “enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation programs as directed by probation.” On appeal, she claims the condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation department in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The People agree the condition’s overbreadth may improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation department as the condition is not limited to outpatient, nonresidential treatment programs. We accept the People’s

1

concession and shall remand for the trial court to clarify the nature of the requirements imposed for the challenged probation condition. I. BACKGROUND In August 2021, defendant and codefendant Susan Knight stole a generator from a pumphouse located on the property of the Joan and Paul (the victims) while Joan was home. The victims had recently listed their house for sale. Officers detained defendant and Knight a short time later and found the victims’ generator in the back of the truck defendant was driving. Officers also located mail and a checkbook, among other things, belonging to a nearby resident who had also listed his home for sale. Several other real estate listings were also found in the truck, including the victims’ home. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and conspiracy to commit second degree burglary (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 459). As to both counts, the jury found true the aggravating factor that the manner in which the crimes were carried out indicated planning, sophistication, or professionalism (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8)). In a subsequent court trial, the court found true the aggravating factor that defendant’s convictions were increasing in seriousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)), but not that she had previously performed unsatisfactorily on probation or supervision (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(5)).2 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for two years with various terms and conditions, including serving 180 days in jail. The probation conditions also included the one challenged here, which provides: “After completion of their jail commitment, the defendant shall enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation program