People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeal Nov 16, 1981 No. Crim. 13119Published

Before: Work

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily accepts probation conditions, including an abstinence requirement, cannot later challenge those conditions on appeal from a probation revocation order. Furthermore, the court affirmed that probation may be revoked for violating conditions rationally related to the defendant's criminal conduct.

Issues

Whether a defendant may challenge the validity of probation conditions for the first time on appeal from a probation revocation order.
Whether a probation condition requiring an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol is unconstitutional or unreasonable.
Whether the trial court erred in its sentencing calculations and consideration of mitigating factors.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He asked for probation, and knowingly agreed to accept the precise term of probation of which he now complains.”

“In spite of Mitchell’s protestations, he was not sentenced to prison for being an alcoholic, but because he is a chronic thief.”

“We deem it not unreasonable for a court to accept a defendant’s representation that he willingly agrees to condition his opportunity for probation on terms rationally related to the criminal activity for which the conviction has been suffered.”

Opinion

WORK, J.

Jerome Mitchell, an alcoholic, was convicted of petty theft with a prior conviction of petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 488/666)

and sentenced to a suspended three-year aggravated term. Probation conditions included his promise to abstain from the use of intoxicating beverages, undertake a program of Antabuse, not to violate the laws of the State of California, etc.; and to report as directed by the probation office. He attacks the validity of violating his probation for failing to abide by the alcohol-related conditions, claiming his “disease” insured noncompliance.

On December 4, 1979, the date Mitchell appeared for sentencing on this charge, he was presently serving a year in custody on a drunk driving matter in Camp Viejas, where he was undergoing alcohol rehabilitation. During sentencing, Mitchell asked the court for probation and to be allowed to remain in the Camp Viejas alcohol treatment program. The sentencing court asked Mitchell if he understood the above conditions, and others, and he personally assured the court he fully understood them. More than that, he specifically and personally agreed to accept the grant of probation and to abide by each condition. Having obtained the benificent result for which he importuned the court, he did not appeal the order. However, he now appeals from an order more than one year later revoking probation and committing him to state prison.

The number and variety of criminal charges arising from Mitchell’s conduct in the short time between his release from Camp Viejas and

[718]

the date of his current sentencing, both before being charged with probation violation and while on bail pending sentencing, is amazing. However, it seems clear Mitchell’s initial probation violation resulted from his using alcohol, perhaps in celebration of his release from Camp Viejas, and being apprehended drunkenly driving on a public highway.

The only factor stated by the trial court for revocation of probation is Mitchell’s numerous violations of the condition requiring him to totally abstain from the use of alcohol. However, testimony at the revocation hearing substantially shows one instance of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23102), a separate incident of drunk in public (§ 647, subd. (f)), another incident of resisting arrest (§ 148), an incident of trespassing (§ 602, subd. (n)), and an additional arrest for drunk in public (for a litany of other offenses, see decision in 4 Crim. 13228, filed this date).

People v. Mitchell

AI Brief

WORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief