In Re Duran

Opinion

THE COURT.

In a well-articulated petition in pro. per., Lee Roger Duran meritoriously seeks habeas corpus on the grounds his probation was revoked for no good reason, and in violation of the notice requirements of

Morrissey

v.

Brewer,

408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593] and

People

v.

Vickers,

8 Cal.3d 451 [105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313].

Following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon while using a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a), 12022.5) upon his wife, on November 9, 1973, the superior court granted Duran probation with the conditions he “(1) Serve one year in the custody of the Sheriff, suspended until Monday, January 7, 1974; (2) Travel to State of Washington and obtain and maintain gainful employment; (3) Reside with or in the immediate proximity to family; (4) Not enter Republic of Mexico; (5) Not leave County of Tumwater or Seattle (whichever appropriate) without written authorization of the Washington Probation Officer, or this Court; (6) Have no personnel [i/c] contact with former wife; (7) Pay a fine of $500 commencing February 1, 1974; at the rate of $25 per month, through the Probation Officer; (8) Participate in a program of therapy under supervision by an

[634]

appropriate agency in the State of Washington pursuant to the Interstate Compact; (9) Have no weapons in his possession; (10) Return to Court.on January 7, 1974, for further proceedings and report.”

This unusual and self-contradictory order required Duran to obtain employment in Washington State, residing there close to his family; pay $25 a month toward a $500 fine, implying this would come out of employment earnings after he began his sheriff’s custody term in San Diego; not leave Tumwater or Seattle, Washington without the Washington probation officer’s or the court’s written authorization, yet commute to San Diego January 7, 1974, for further proceedings and report, the latter part indicating the court’s interest in Duran’s progress which if satisfactory would be ground for further suspending or deleting the sheriff’s custody condition; otherwise, if the one year in the sheriff’s custody was automatic, there would be no need “for further proceedings and report.”