People v. Smith

Opinion

FEINERMAN, P. J.

The sole issue in this appeal is the propriety of a condition of probation ordering the defendant not to drink any alcoholic beverages and to stay out of places where they are the chief item of sale. Defendant had pled guilty to possession of PCP (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), proceedings were suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions. Defendant does not contest any of the probationary conditions imposed relating to drug use. He challenges the probation condition restricting the use of alcoholic beverages on the grounds that it bears no relationship to his drug crime or to his future criminality. We have carefully examined the record and find no merit in defendant’s contention. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

[1034]

The defendant was 26 years of age at the time he was sentenced in this case. His probation report indicated that he had an extensive involvement with drugs dating back to the time he was 11 years of age, when he began using both marijuana and cocaine. At the time of his arrest in this case, a bottle containing 10 milliliters of liquid phencyclidine was found on defendant’s person. In the opinion of the arresting officers, defendant was under the influence of phencyclidine when he was apprehended. Defendant’s long criminal record includes a conviction for armed robbery. The probation report opined that defendant had several personality problems and concluded that defendant was in acute need of professional guidance in regards to drugs, employment, and education.

“A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. . . .’ [Citation.] Conversely, a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.”

(People

v.

Lent