People v. Watkins

Opinion

ELKINGTON, Acting P. J.

Defendant Joseph A. Watkins (Watkins) was found guilty by a jury’s verdicts of two counts of arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)), and was thereafter placed on probation. He has appealed from the order granting probation.

An ongoing feud had existed between Watkins and his next-door neighbors (the neighbors) for more than 20 years. It centered around a boundary dispute, and it eventuated in Watkins’s conviction of destroying by “torches” the neighbors’ two automobiles. No contention is made by Watkins that his convictions were unsupported by substantial evidence.

On his appeal Watkins challenges only the probation conditions imposed upon him. We accordingly point out the apposite rules.

“ ‘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. . . .[”]’ [¶] There is, of course, no question that the condition imposed in this case infringes the exercise of a fundamental right . . . protected by both the federal and state constitutions. . . . Nor is there any question that for this reason the condition must be subjected to special scrutiny to determine whether the restriction is entirely necessary to serve the dual purposes of rehabilitation and public safety. . . . ‘“Where a condition of probation requires a waiver of precious constitutional rights, the condition must be narrowly drawn; to the extent it is overbroad it is

not

reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation and is an unconstitutional restriction on the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.”. . .’”

(People

v.

Pointer

(1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1138, 1139 [199 Cal.Rptr. 357].)

We observe no

fundamental right

of one convicted of crime to be free from reasonable conditions of probation. The issue before us is whether the challenged conditions were reasonable.

[1689]