People v. Carlson CA1/5

Filed 9/17/25 P. v. Carlson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172130 v. JESSICAH CARLSON, (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CF249185) Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant and appellant Jessicah Carlson pled no contest to a single felony count for resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)), 1 the trial court placed her on probation. Under the terms and conditions of her probation, Carlson had to “[t]otally refrain” from using marijuana, alcohol, illegal substances, or controlled substances that had not been prescribed to her by a doctor. To ensure that she refrained from doing so, Carlson had to submit to testing “for intoxicating or controlled substances on demand . . . .” If the “results” of those tests were not “clean,” then she would violate her probation. On appeal, Carlson contends that the requirement that her test results be “clean” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We disagree and therefore affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTS On July 11, 2024, the People filed an information charging Carlson with two felonies: resisting an executive officer (§ 69, subd. (a); count 1) and battery with injury on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2); count 2). Carlson pled no contest to count 1 (resisting an executive officer). As the factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor stated that Carlson grabbed an officer’s vest, threatened to hit that officer with a shoe, and kicked the officer in the face. Carlson later moved to withdraw her plea but the trial court denied her motion. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court placed Carlson on “two years of formal probation” and imposed certain terms and conditions. Conditions 21 to 23 are the three conditions that are relevant to this appeal. Under condition 21, Carlson must “[t]otally refrain from the possession or consumption of alcohol and marijuana, and stay out of places where alcohol and/or marijuana is the chief item of sale, including but not limited to dispensaries, breweries, and liquor stores.” Under condition 22, Carlson must “[t]otally refrain from the use or possession, and not be under the influence of any illegal substance or any controlled substances that are not prescribed by a medical doctor or physician, and shall not use or possess controlled substance paraphernalia including but not limited to pipes, hypodermic needles, and bongs.” Finally, under condition 23, Carlson must “[s]ubmit to blood, breath, urine, field sobriety, and other chemical testing for intoxicating or controlled substances on demand of any Probation or Peace Officer. Submit clean test results. For any pre-scheduled test, the results must be undiluted.” During discussions about these three conditions at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer stated that Carlson “reported that she uses